Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London Buses

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the future of London Buses.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We have received a number of representations on our plans for the privatisation and deregulation of buses in London.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of people in London are violently opposed to the deregulation and privatisation of their bus services? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that outside London in English metropolitan areas there has been a reduction of 24·8 per cent. in passenger journeys since deregulation took place? London bus drivers and conductors are being forced into accepting lower wages and longer working hours while operating disgracefully old buses. The average age of a London bus is over 13 years.
Does not the Minister think that it is time to listen to what the people of London say, to end nonsensical privatisation and deregulation and adhere to what is, basically, a very good bus service in London which can

provide a decent and safe service for the people, rather than stepping into the unknown and the nonsensical concept of deregulation?

Mr. Norris: It is always nice to start the week with the sort of rant that reminds me why Conservative Members occupy the Government Benches while Labour Members are on the Opposition Benches. There are three essential conclusions to be drawn from the deregulation experience: first, operating costs have been reduced by a third; secondly, route mileage has increased by 20 per cent; and, thirdly, public subsidy has been reduced by half.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation and deregulation of London Buses will lead to innovation and the introduction of new services for the benefit of London's travelling public? Will he comment on the dishonest campaign that deregulation will mean the end of the bus pass?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say just that. The concessionary fares that are offered to pensioners in London are financed by the boroughs. The provision for them to provide similar facilities is, and always has been, a cornerstone of our deregulation legislation. My hon. Friend put his finger on the matter. Developments in bus technology— midibuses and minibuses, for example—have all arisen as a consequence of deregulation and not the planning-led and sterile system that the Labour party appears to favour.

Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the Minister knows that outside London fewer people are using deregulated bus services rather than more. The Minister is out to lunch if he believes that the majority of Londoners are looking forward to deregulation in the capital. Can he defend a situation in which bus workers are being told that if they want to retain their jobs they will have to accept wage cuts of £20 or £30 a week, or more? Does he think that that is fair? It is not something which we would vote in favour of for ourselves and it is not something which we should inflict on London bus workers.

Mr. Norris: May I make it plain to the hon. Gentleman —I think that he knows—that people in London simply


wish to see a better bus service. They are concerned that we should respond to their concerns as passengers. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that deregulation will enable us to do that more effectively.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the renegotiated terms that London Buses Ltd. has discussed with some of its employees. That has put bus workers in the undertakings concerned on all fours with all of those who are employed in bus companies in the private sector. When the renegotiation has taken place, it has been accompanied by large payments which, generally, have been well in excess of £1,000, to buy out the previous uncompetitive working practices.

Mr. Forman: As some of my constituents, including those who work for London Buses, have expressed quite strong reservations about the liberalisation policy which I think my hon. Friend knows about, will he kindly set out for their benefit and for that of the House how it is that the experience of rural bus services, or services in rural towns, is relevant to the peculiar circumstances of Greater London?

Mr. Norris: I know, Madam Speaker, that you would not wish me to answer my hon. Friend exhaustively, so perhaps I can write to him in more detail. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the reduction in the use of buses has generally been associated above all with the growth in the use of the private car. People want to use their private cars and, when they can, they will generally do so. That is generally more possible outside London than inside. I repeat to my hon. Friend and for the benefit of the House that the key benefits of deregulation are substantial reductions in operating costs and increases in the number of bus miles operated.

Airbags

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to require all new cars to be fitted with airbags.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): Legislation on the compulsory fitting of airbags would have to be initiated by the European Commission. There is no restriction on their use in cars in the United Kingdom, but seat belts, which are effective and cheaper to fit than air bags, will remain the main personal restraint feature.

Dr. Jones: In view of the Minister's concern about road and passenger safety and of the likely delay in any legislation being implemented, is not it clear that more people will be looking to public transport? Will he therefore do battle with the Treasury over its nonsensical rules, which are preventing the Midland Metro scheme from going ahead? It is self-financing and will reduce the costs of accidents by £6 million in addition to creating 1,100 jobs.

Mr. Carlisle: That was a question which certainly had a lot to do with airbags—or windbags, if I may say so. Clearly, it is up to the individual how he or she wishes to travel, but, when people travel, by far the best thing that they can do to secure their safety is to wear a safety belt.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I say that my question is to do with airbags. Research currently being

undertaken shows that the majority of accidents come from side impact. Will he promote research into protection from side impact, which is now more important than front or rear impact?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is the design of the car which can now do most to prevent injury. The Transport Research Laboratory is researching the design of a car that would deal with side impact. We certainly intend to continue with that, but, as part of the single market, we have to persuade everyone else in Europe to go along with such measures. We are determined that more people will wear safety belts and we are making progress in that respect. I also welcome the fact that more United Kingdom models are now fitted with airbags, which offers genuine customer choice.

London-Carlisle Rail Service

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to travel in an official capacity on the London-Carlisle InterCity train service.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I did so last month. I would have travelled on the line again last Friday, but the strike meant that I was one of the passengers lost to British Rail that day, with corresponding substantial loss of revenue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will condemn that counter-productive strike in the same way as I did.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State realise that we have waited a number of years for investment in that line and that its managers say that, unless investment is forthcoming, the line will simply collapse? I understand that the Minister intends to make an announcement in reply to my question, but may I pre-empt him by saying that, if investment is based on competition in which we are in a run-off with Kent for £150 million, that is not good enough? We demand investment now. The taxpayer has over the years paid a great deal of money to government on the basis that investment would be made in the line. Why cannot he give us an honourable statement today instead of what some might regard as a dishonourable cop-out?

Mr. MacGregor: I was asked when I intended to travel on the line and I was answering the hon. Gentleman's question. As to his supplementary questions, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport hopes to make an announcement soon about rolling stock in relation to leasing. As to infrastructure, BR intends to start work renewing the west coast main line, but the precise timing will be decided later in the spring, when British Rail finalises its spending plans. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the taxpayers' contribution to British Rail, he should know that we spent record sums on capital investment in BR last year. It is expected that the figure will reach more than £1 billion this year—which is still substantial by any standards. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the relevance of my comment that British Rail is losing £10 million a day in the RMT strikes. If the hon. Gentleman favours investment, will he call on the RMT to stop the strikes, which are reducing investment rather than increasing it?

Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that line services the great and beautiful city of Chester? Is he


further aware that last Friday I, too, was unable to take my customary train to Chester and consequently took an aeroplane? I discovered that the journey to Chester via Manchester was half an hour faster. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Friday's futile strike not only did a grave disservice to our national railway system but gave a useful shot in the arm to British Airways?

Mr. MacGregor: When I was to share a platform with my hon. Friend on Friday afternoon, we both had to travel by air rather than take a train. I agree that the risk of such strikes is that passengers will be permanently lost to British Rail when they discover, as my hon. Friend did, that there is a quicker way to travel to Chester. The risk to freight is even more serious. I have endeavoured in a number of ways to get more freight off the road and on to the railways and I have presented to the House schemes for achieving that. Last Friday's strike and other strikes will cause that freight to be switched from rail to road, which would counterbalance anything that I am trying to do. That is why the strike is counter-productive.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that instead of hurling abuse at people in industrial disputes, it would be much better if he used his office to bring the parties together to achieve an agreement, rather than have disagreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement on British Rail's financial objectives one day before the first day's dispute, when British Rail was meeting the trade unions, which would have resulted in cutting investment by half and BR's revenue subsidy by 23 per cent., and in making another 5 per cent. of cuts, could only have added to the thousands of redundancies? Was not that statement designed to torpedo the talks?

Mr. MacGregor: That is absolute nonsense. The objective set for British Rail next year and the announcement that we made in the autumn statement will mean a somewhat smaller public service obligation grant than the year before. However, it is a good deal higher than two years ago and very much higher than for a long time. It is down only on the year before. What is more, it is being achieved by more efficient British Rail cost operations, which included the voluntary redundancies that it has achieved this year on generous terms.

Mr. Prescott: Yes.

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that they were voluntary. I hope that he agrees that, in the interests of the taxpayer, it is right that British Rail should seek to reduce its costs and thus to have a lower PSO—but it is still a good deal higher than earlier.

Mr. Prescott: What about investment?

Mr. MacGregor: Last year was an absolute record and this year it will be £1 billion—higher than in any period since the early 1960s and still very substantial. As to the strike, I have made it clear throughout that I support the British Railways Board. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of investment in British Rail, does he not realise that it would be better for him to persuade the RMT to call off its strikes rather than support it in the way that he did? The hon. Gentleman is risking investment going down next year.

Mr. Adley: Leaving aside the rhetoric on both sides of the House about the strike, does my right hon. Friend

agree that lack of investment on the west coast main line is having a deleterious effect on services? Is there any realistic likelihood, under his plans for the railways, of private sector investment in that line's infrastructure?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that I have written to him three times to ask when I may present to him personally the literally hundreds of letters that I have received about his plans for the railways? Will my right hon. Friend ask his private office to deal with that little point as well?

Mr. MacGregor: I have replied to my hon. Friend. He writes me a very large number of letters and I endeavour to get a reply to him as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend asked me about infrastructure investment on the west coast main line. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will say something about that shortly.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Secretary of State comment on the impression given by the Minister for Public Transport to the Standing Committee considering the Railways Bill that the leased stock—the new rolling stock that is coming into the railway industry—will be given to the new franchisees? Does he agree that the existing rail users on the remainder of the service will not regard that as a golden handshake for them?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that my hon. Friend did not say that to the Standing Committee.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has always been clear, as he confirmed yet again this afternoon, that British Rail has definite plans to upgrade and modernise the west coast main line as soon as possible? Does he further agree that the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when he is in the north-west, spreading gloom and despondency and scare stories about maintenance and safety on the west coast main line, can only drive passengers away, further damage the west coast main line and frustrate all the hopes that my constituents have of their direct through service from Blackpool to London being reintroduced? It is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, therefore, who is doing the damage to the west coast main line.

Mr. MacGregor: The intention and hope obviously is that, before long, we shall be able to start infrastructure investment on the west coast main line. Until now, it has been for British Rail to establish its investment priorities. In recent years, there have been massive sums of capital investment in other lines—£550 million on the east coast main line and £800 million on Network SouthEast. The west coast main line is now a clear candidate for investment priority. I have already said that British Rail hopes to renew the infrastructure on the west coast main line shortly. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The support that he has given to the RMT strike damages the interests and prospects of both passengers and investment. It is also unnecessary to spread scare stories.

West Coast Main Line

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what offer he has received to modernise the west coast main line from the consortium of GEC Alsthom, Balfour Beattie and Trafalgar House.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): A consortium has expressed an interest in privately financing the infrastructure renewal of the west coast main line and we are studying the proposal. In addition, new rolling stock for this line is one of two options under consideration by British Rail for the £150 million rolling stock leasing facility announced in the autumn statement. The other option is upgraded dual-voltage Networkers for use on Network SouthEast's outer suburban services. I have today asked British Rail to invite tenders for both options. The eventual choice between then will depend on the bids received.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the Minister aware that breakdowns are occurring all the time? Only this morning when I travelled down to London the train was delayed because of engine failure. On the last four occasions that I have travelled there have been engine failures and long delays. Can the Minister say when decisions will be taken? Does not he realise that about £900 million needs to be invested in the west coast main line? Far from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talking about the safety risks, it was the route director for the west coast main line, Mr. Warburton, who made that statement. When will there be action? We are fed up with waiting.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the cost of the infrastructure and rolling stock work is estimated to be about £900 million. We have today announced that British Rail is going out to tender for new inter-city west coast main line rolling stock and that it will compare those tenders with the bids received for the new class 465 Networkers. It is sensible to see what is the best value for both British Rail and the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend said that work will start very soon on resignalling the line and improving the infrastructure. British Rail has only just completed over £500 million of work on the east coast main line. It is important for British Rail now to turn its attention to the west coast main line, which should become the premier railway line in the country.

Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement this afternoon that tenders will be invited for improving the rolling stock on the lamentable west coast main line service is good news? Will he give the House an assurance that if both bids reflect good value for money, it is not impossible that both will be accepted?

Mr. Freeman: I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that, as the leasing market develops, as surely it will—we hope within the next few weeks to be able to announce our conclusions on the consultation document on leasing—it is not out of the question that both options can be pursued.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why does the Minister pretend that he has not taken evidence about the length of time it takes to place an order, to build the rolling stock and to get it into service? He knows very well that there is no market for second-hand, broken-down carriages which already produce an inadequate service. If he is not prepared to give us a genuine undertaking this afternoon that both lines are a priority, we shall know that his talk of wanting to support the passenger is so much hot air.

Mr. Freeman: I hope very much that because of the specific class of rolling stock that British Rail has selected

—class 465 Networkers, which are dual voltage trains that can be used on Network SouthEast—and because of British Rail's decision to go out to tender for class 91 locomotives and mark IV coaches for the west coast main line, not much redesign work will be involved. I hope that the tenders will be returned quickly, that decisions can be made and that the trains will be manufactured quickly.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend will appreciate that his announcement this afternoon has profound implications for the future of the north Kent line. Given that, will he recognise that the trains for that line will mean jobs in construction for the United Kingdom and jobs that will enable north-east Kent to compete with Nord-Pas de Calais for jobs that would otherwise go to France? Will he impress on British Rail the importance of those trains to north Kent when the final decision is taken?

Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's hard work in representing the best interests of his constituents on the Kent coast line. I can confirm that British Rail is well aware of the importance of improving the rolling stock in Kent, especially because, next year, new trains will provide channel tunnel services. It is important, certainly in outer Kent, that we have modern, efficient rolling stock which can compete, which offer good value for money and which will compare well with the new rolling stock to be introduced to the channel tunnel.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister recognise that the further delay in reaching an order, which his announcement today implies, puts at risk 1,600 jobs at the ABB works in my constituency and puts at risk jobs at GEC? Can he give us a firm date for when the order will be placed? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will approach the Treasury to get authorisation now for £300 million of leasing finance so that both orders can go ahead? Will he also give an undertaking that the whole build of whatever orders are placed will take place in this country because otherwise the British railway manufacturing industry will go the way of the British motor cycle industry, adding billions of pounds to our balance of payments deficit?

Mr. Freeman: No further delay will be caused by my announcement today. If the order had been for one line, there would still have had to be a tender procedure. There is no additional delay. I am well aware of representations from many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), who last week made very strong representations on behalf of ABB. If ABB wins an order, it will be good for York, for Derby and for Crewe. I am also well aware of the fact that GEC Alsthom is another major manufacturing company for rolling stock. We shall see what response we get from the bids. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the leasing market will so develop that we are able to proceed with re-equipping both lines.

Sir Roger Moate: Does my hon. Friend understand that, despite our welcome for the leasing finance, there is some disappointment at the fact that we have waited six months for a decision, but are now told that, between the two competing lines, there is only a 50–50 chance of one order being placed? That is not satisfactory. Why has it taken six months to reach that conclusion? If one line is


not to be the loser, can my hon. Friend explain far more clearly to the House how it might be that if leasing finance develops within the coming weeks, both those orders, which are equally important, might be placed?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the importance of the leasing market. I have given an assurance that we will make a statement as quickly as possible on the response to the consultation document on the procurement of rolling stock and leasing, and on how that market will develop. New opportunities will be opened up by these important developments and we will return to the House as quickly as we can to say how we see the way forward.

Mr. Wilson: As the Secretary of State seems to have some difficulty understanding his own handiwork, will the Minister confirm that in the current year investment in the existing railway will be at its lowest since nationalisation in 1948, and that a public service obligation grant cut of 23 per cent. is envisaged? That is bad news for the west coast line and for the system as a whole.
Will the Minister confirm that this pathetic damp squib of a statement is the direct consequence of playing two schemes off against each other when there is absolutely no need to do so? Instead of an announcement as to which of the schemes will go ahead, we have today had only a recycling of a previous announcement that two schemes are in the running. Does that situation have anything to do with the forthcoming county council elections?
Having finally accepted the leasing concept that the Opposition advanced 18 months ago, why have the Government still not given us a decision on a single line that will benefit from it? What possible reason is there for restricting leasing to one project instead of using the concept to develop and modernise our railways and to give some relief to the private railway industries which are starved of investment and are warning the Government that, due to the blight created by the threat of privatisation, 30,000 jobs are at risk in those industries in places such as York, Derby and Birmingham?

Mr. Freeman: In referring to investment, the hon. Gentleman always makes a simple error. Both he and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) always exclude channel tunnel rail investment. That will be part of the existing railway this year because the channel tunnel will open this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "This year?"] Yes, this financial year. That is why, £1·4 billion worth of investment should be included. The channel tunnel is as much a part of the railway system as the London-Tilbury-Southend line.

Cyclists (Safety Equipment)

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to make the wearing of safety equipment by cyclists compulsory.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Cyclists are encouraged to wear cycle helmets and conspicuous clothing, and that message was reinforced in our recent "cycle safe" campaign.

Mr. Booth: I shall resist the temptation to ask again about airbags, but in the light of numerous allegations that, following cycling accidents, cranial and other head injuries are the principal anxieties of the medical community, will my hon. Friend give the House an

assurance that he will continue his fine record in safety matters and that proper medical research will be undertaken into all such injuries so that we may reach an adequate decision?

Mr. Carlisle: I can advise my hon. Friend that the Transport Research Laboratory is carrying out research. It is important, however, that before making anything compulsory we ask ourselves where regulation stops and good sense begins. I believe that as a country we are in danger of over-regulating, with all the problems of bureaucracy and enforcement that that entails. I am convinced that in this instance persuasion is the right way forward. I believe that our recent cycle safe campaign was effective and got the message across.

Ms Walley: But what is the Minister doing to promote cycling and safer cycling? Is it not the case that his Department does not recognise the role of cycling in reducing congestions, and is it not time that he gave far more support to those throughout the country who wish to cycle?

Mr. Carlisle: I welcome the fact that people should bicycle safely if that is their choice. However, the hon. Lady has not listened to what I told her some months ago. I suggested then that she should go away and read our traffic advisory leaflets and local transport notes which offer advice in that area, the most recent of which was entitled "Making Way for Cyclists". That showed local authorities how to engineer routes to encourage cycling and make it safer.

Airport Security

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has for improving security at United Kingdom airports.

Mr. Norris: The Government have proposals for 100 per cent. hold baggage screening, for requiring airlines to account for and authorise for carriage all the baggage that they carry, and for improving the security of air cargo, mail and courier traffic.

Mr. Kynoch: As a frequent user of airliners, I am concerned that the Lockerbie disaster and the lessons learnt from it should be kept very much to the fore. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Will he confirm that Britain is leading the way in Europe with those measures? Will he also reassure me that, as 80 per cent. of British air travel is international, he will give the highest priority to ensuring that the target of 100 per cent. is attained as soon as possible?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and he is right to believe that the House takes the issue very seriously. I can confirm that my Department will continue to attach a high degree of importance to the whole issue of airport, airline and aviation safety generally. It may interest my hon. Friend to learn that our resources in that area have been increased tenfold since 1987.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Minister tell the House whether tests of aviation security at our airports carried out by his Department have shown standards to be unacceptably low four years after the Lockerbie tragedy?

Mr. Norris: I can confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said in his original supplementary—that standards in the United Kingdom are far in advance of those in virtually every other country in the world. From his knowledge of these matters, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will know that in terms of implementation of 100 per cent. screening by 1996, we are already making very substantial progress towards that and are way in advance of most other countries in Europe. On that basis, I am indeed satisfied with the measures that the Department and the airlines and carriers are taking.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what commitments he intends shall be imposed on companies undertaking rail service franchises to maintain existing intermediate stops.

Mr. MacGregor: The commitments will be laid out in the franchise contract. The franchisee will not be able to cease serving a station contrary to the terms of that contract.

Mr. Beith: What if someone like Mr. Richard Branson has been running the east coast main line service for about a year and then comes back to the Department of Transport and says, "I'd like to try running the trains express from Edinburgh to London and miss out all the stops at Berwick, Dunbar and Alnmouth"? Will he be given permission to do that? If that venture led to the collapse of the service because of a losss of revenue due to a mistake in commercial judgment, what would happen to the communities who would lose their rail service in the meantime?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to comment on who might get the franchise, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that franchisees wishing to alter service patterns below the minimum specified—the kind of situation that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—must give notice of that proposal to the franchising director who, after due consideration, will accept or reject the proposal. If there is a continuing demand for the service from which a franchisee might wish to withdraw, I believe that the franchising director would look very carefully at any such proposition. If there were any suggestion of the closure of a station or a service, all the normal statutory procedures which have applied in recent years would apply in the future.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of bringing in new franchisees is that it would allow the private sector to bring forward new ideas and new products?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I very much agree. The whole purpose of our proposals is to improve the services for passengers, not to see them withdrawn.

Airlines (Competition)

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to competition among United Kingdom airlines.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government's policy is to encourage free, fair and open competition among airlines to the benefit of both consumers and airlines.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the leading role that the Government have played in liberalising the airline industry throughout Europe? Is that not already shown in the recent reductions in prices on European routes? May we now look forward to greater freedom for airlines throughout Europe?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I do not think that the significance of the third aviation package in the European Community has yet been fully appreciated in opening up competition and liberalising the skies across Europe. Indeed, its effects are already being felt earlier than many people predicted. I am glad to say that, as the British Government were in the forefront of arguing for the changes and getting them, British airlines are in the forefront of taking advantage of them.
Since the new package came in on 1 January, British Midland has launched its Diamond Euroclass cabin in a new package offering savings of up to 40 per cent. compared with other airlines on seven routes in the Community and just outside it. Since then, other airlines, including British Airways, Aer Lingus, KLM and Air France, have followed suit and brought down their fares. That is a clear example of our new competition package operating to the benefit of consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of the National Audit Office's resources in 1993–94 will be devoted to the certification of public accounts.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office is allocating 44 per cent. of its budget for audit work to certification activities in 1993–94.

Mr. Dowd: I thank the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission for that response. Can he give the House his estimate of the increase in costs that will be required by the National Audit Office to undertake a more detailed analysis of the accounts that come before it, such as the components under the main headings of the accounts of Government Departments? Given that it is likely to be a large and disproportionate increase in costs, what guidelines is the Commission prepared to offer through the National Audit Office to Departments to ensure that what is defined in main headings is what is included in those parts of the accounts so that items such as Ministers' legal expenses cannot be buried under headings such as "stationery"?

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office expects to increase the number of certifications that it does during the next few years from 498 to 560, at a significant reduction in real costs. I do not expect anything to happen during the next few years that will involve extra costs for the National Audit Office. The Public Accounts Commission is satisfied with its further programme.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Employment has asked the National Audit Office whether it can work out the true cost of unemployment, especially what it costs when a person is made unemployed, not merely as a result of tax not paid but in terms of the benefits that the person and his family will receive? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lean on the National Audit Office to provide that information, because I am sure that no one else in the United Kingdom is willing to do so?

Sir Peter Hordern: I will certainly pass the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Strictly speaking, it is more a matter for the Public Accounts Committee than for the Commission, but I will certainly pass on the hon. and learned Gentleman's views.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer specifically the question that he was asked about ministerial expenses and how they are defined in departmental accounts? Is he concerned about what has happened recently? Does he think that he should perhaps convene a meeting with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General to see whether a way forward can be found whereby such expenses, when incurred, are clearly set out in Government accounts in a way that the public can understand?

Sir Peter Hordern: These are important and interesting matters and can be dealt with fully by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman has every access.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to franchise the Great Western line.

Mr. MacGregor: Great Western Intercity is one of the seven service groups that I have asked British Rail to prepare for early franchising. I have asked BR to create a separate Great Western operating company so that potential franchisees can see how the services perform before making their bids

Mr. Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the InterCity 1"/ diesel locomotives have been in operation for 20 or more years and are coming naturally towards the end of their useful working life. Will he bear that fact in mind in assessing the length of the franchise that might be awarded in the Great Western region to ensure that there is a sufficient payback period for an operator to make the new capital investment which will be needed?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am aware that in due course the diesel locomotives will have to be replaced. I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the length of the franchise, which will be for the franchising director to establish, will reflect the commitment and investment that the potential franchisees are prepared to put in. In other words, if they are prepared to make a substantial investment in rolling stock, the franchisees will expect a longer franchise than

would otherwise be the case. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will come forward shortly with the responses to the consultation document on leasing of rolling stock. That is also relevant.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Creche Facilities

Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) of 22 February, Official Report, column 678, what progress has been made in making creche facilities available for the children of hon. Members and of House of Commons staff.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on progress on the provision of creche facilities in the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Since I last answered questions on the subject on 22 February, the Administration Committee has considered the possibility that the House might take up a small number of places in a projected joint venture nursery near Vincent square. The Committee turned down the proposal as inappropriate and has consulted the Commission on the need for a comprehensive survey of all possible users. That will now be taken ahead, with the Commission's full support.

Mr. Flynn: How can the Commission maintain that there is not room within these buildings for a creche when we have room for a shooting gallery and several rooms are used for wining and dining which is not parliamentary but entirely commercial and party political in character? Do we have to wait until the present crop of children who might now be in nursery school are attending university before a creche is provided? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there are special problems for the 2,000 staff in the building and especially for Members of Parliament as the peculiar demands of our jobs mean that many of our families are brought up for most of the year in a single-parent context?

Mr. Beith: The Commission is well aware of the problems and the proposals for dealing with them. That is why it intends to undertake the survey. The hon. Gentleman must address his views about the use of rooms in the building to the Accommodation and Works Committee. However, I am bound to say that the public authorities would probably not look kindly on the use of a basement now used as a shooting gallery for a children's creche.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Why is it taking so long for the creche facilities to be provided when so many Members have urged for several years that action be taken? It seems to us that once again obstacles and delay are being put in the way of the provision of facilities. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a date by which he hopes to see the facilities provided?

Mr. Beith: I should like to see the facilities provided as soon as possible, but the hon. Gentleman should discuss


with his hon. Friends who are members of the appropriate Committee the difficulties that they foresee in providing accommodation from the present parliamentary estate. They made the decision to which I referred, and they must be well aware of the difficulties.

Mr. Burns: May I ask my right hon. Friend fully to appreciate that although it may not be popular with some of our colleagues, the House of Commons must be brought into the 20th century? In the past two decades or so, many men and women who are younger and have young children have become Members of Parliament. It seems inappropriate that while the Government and other organisations encourage and foster the provision of creche facilities, this establishment seems remarkably reluctant to provide the facilities that it encourages the private sector and other sections of the community to provide.

Mr. Beith: The Commission has no reluctance on the matter so long as demand can be shown and satisfactory accommodation can be provided.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the questions that I asked him in February and on the first sitting day in 1993 did not refer to surveys? The House is not asking for surveys—it is asking for action, and action this year. A creche facility is not specialised —it requires toilets and water, but it should not be impossible to find space within the various buildings of the Palace of Westminster which contain such facilities. May we have some action, please?

Mr. Beith: The joint venture, which the Administration Committee regarded as inappropriate, would have provided only six places, and would have done so at a relatively high cost. It was partly because of the inadequate number of places that the Commission felt it necessary to support a proper survey, to see how many people would use this facility.

Accommodation

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what provision has been made in 1993–94 for the building of further accommodation.

Mr. Beith: A total of £10·5 million has been made available in 1993–94 to cover the remaining works at No. 7 Millbank and to continue the design work on phase 2 of the new parliamentary building.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as well as the need for offices, we need rooms for meetings and other larger ones? Is it not extraordinary that hon. Members on both sides of the House have to traipse like stones to the bowels of the Treasury to donate blood?

Mr. Beith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's journey across the road is well worth while and in the public interest. It illustrates the problems that we have in providing for a wide range of facilities in this building, as well as ensuring that hon. Members and their staff are adequately accommodated. That is why the Commission authorised the accommodation at 7 Millbank and why we are proceeding with work on the new parliamentary building.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: What has been the cost of the upkeep of this Palace, building and refurbishing offices, pampering the secretaries and providing ridiculous services, more of which—such as creches—have been suggested this afternoon? Why not have nannies and nurses as well? Will the right hon. Gentleman state the cost over the past 10 years of the appalling extravagances in which we expect the public not to indulge but which we have given to ourselves?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a most interesting question, but one which requires notice.

Printing Costs

Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of the expenditure of the Commission goes on printing for the House.

Mr. Beith: The estimates for 1993–94 include provision of £18·6 million for expenditure on printing and publications, most of which is incurred in the supply of parliamentary papers.
This represents some 18·5 per cent. of the total estimates for House of Commons administration and works services for the year.

Mr. Steen: Clearly, printing costs have gone through the roof. While we expect that other bodies should manage their affairs efficiently and run them more cheaply each year, why is it that each year we run our own more expensively? Why do we allow this bureaucracy to go on and on increasing? As it costs £200 or more for each oral question to be answered, including this one, why should there not be a limit to the amount that hon. Members can spend each year on questions? While the right hon. Gentleman is looking at questions, will he also look at the bureaucracy of the House and the Serjeant at Arms Department?

Mr. Beith: Any limit on the ability of hon. Members to ask questions would be very controversial and a matter for the Procedure Committee and not for the Commission, which provides the services necessary for the House to do its job. The House printing requirements are unusual in that there is a large amount of overnight printing of Hansard and other parliamentary papers. Discussions are taking place now as to how to carry out that work most efficiently. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that that will lead to a considerable containment of the costs.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to suggest, both to the Government and to his fellow Members, that one easy way of cutting down on the amount of paper that we produce would be to return to the habit of Ministers taking responsibility for their own questions and their appearance in the Official Report instead of occasionally allowing vast, pointless and frequently opaque replies to be printed in Hansard?

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Lady's question will be noted on the Front Bench, as Ministers alone can act on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Midland Line (Electrification)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any recent discussions with representatives of local authorities and others regarding the midland line electrification.

Mr. Freeman: Yes. I attended a meeting of the Association of County Councils in Nottingham on 26 March, when the possible electrification of the midland main line was discussed.

Mr. Skinner: What is the Minister going to do about it? Now that he has met the local authorities will he put them in the lucky bag with the west coasst line and the Kent line? The Government are trying to kid local authorities into believing that they are getting something before the county elections, but when those elections are over the net result will be that the midland line electrification will fall. Is the Minister aware that the Government have spent too much time attacking the railway unions, which are fighting for the livelihoods and jobs of their members, when the Government should be concentrating on improving the rolling stock and electrification up and down Britain?

Mr. Freeman: Every day of the rail strike, which the hon. Gentleman supports, means £10 million less investment in British Rail.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Oral Questions

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the operation of the system of handing in oral questions at the Table Office.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Since the beginning of the 1990–91 Session, hon. Members may table, in person, a maximum of two questions to each Minister: one in their own name, and one for another hon. Member. Questions are handed in at the Table Office between 10 am and 5 pm a fortnight before the date on which they are to be answered.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am aware, as he is, that the previous system was often abused by Members turning out multiple versions of their questions and handing them in through a variety of sources. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that Back Benchers are often away from the House in their constituencies, or on Select Committee on other business, perhaps at short notice, and find it extremely difficult to be in the House two weeks in advance to hand in their question? As an alternative to the present system. may I suggest that so long as Members write out their question by hand and sign it as the original copy, they should be allowed to post it if they have a legitimate reason for being unable to be in the House to hand it in as it is not always possible to find a colleague to do so in one's place?

Mr. Newton: As you, Madam Speaker, will be aware, alongside other changes made for the 1990–91 Session mentioned by my hon. Friend, the time available for handing in oral questions was, if I remember correctly,

extended from 4 pm to 5 pm. I am prepared to consider any representations, and my hon. Friend might like to make suggestions to the Procedure Committee. If it could be convincingly shown that sufficient difficulties were being caused to justify changes, that might be considered. We must bear in mind the need to ensure that those responsible for preparing the Order Paper and determining the order of questions also have adequate time to do their work.

Standing Committee on Regional Affairs

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received on the subject of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received proposing matters to be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs as provided by Standing Order No. 100.

Mr. Newton: I have received one letter about the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs and the matter has been raised occasionally at business questions.

Mr. Pickthall: As the Scots and the Welsh rightly have Select Committees and Grand Committees to discuss their affairs, is not unacceptable that the one Committee in which English regional affairs could and should be discussed has not met since 1978? Now that every English region is suffering from industrial decline and infrastructural and unemployment problems, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that every Member of the House who represents an English constituency would welcome the opportunity of speaking and participating in that Committee?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged, once the Committee had been set up—the Standing Order providing for that having been put in place in the mid-1970s—it rapidly fell into virtually total disuse and has met only twice since the 1975–76 Session, which suggests that no one has seen any great merit in its proceedings. As I have said on a number of occasions, I for one am not persuaded that it would be right to undertake meetings in the way the hon. Gentleman would wish. I have been trying to ensure proper opportunities for debate on the Floor of the House on matters such as tourism and on other subjects raised under this head.

Mr. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that a number of Conservative Members would very much welcome an opportunity to pursue our regional interests in just such a Committee, especially Members who represent the south-west in view of the iniquitous water charges imposed by South West Water, to mention just one subject that we should like to examine in detail in such a Committee?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's support for one particular aspect of this request and I hope that it was clear that my phrasing did not absolutely rule out consideration of this matter. However, I am certainly not at present persuaded of the case for it.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Lord President reconsider that answer? He referred to the relatively small number of occasions on which the Committee was convened in the 1970s, but if he studies -the record he will find that it was


extremely well attended. Twenty, thirty and even sixty Members were in attendance to discuss issues of exactly the kind that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has mentioned. I think that there would be a strong welcome on both sides of the House for such a move.

Mr. Newton: I admit that I have not researched the attendance at those meetings, but as membership of the Committee consists of all hon. Members with English constituencies, plus five others nominated by the Committee of Selection, the attendance figures that the right hon. Lady has given were rather low.

Bosnia

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Bosnia.
There is today a fragile ceasefire in Srebrenica. One hundred and thirty-three military and civilian wounded were evacuated yesterday by helicopter to Tuzla. It is hoped to bring out a further 200 today. British Sea King helicopters are taking part in this airlift.
Canadian troops have been deployed into Srebrenica to monitor the ceasefire arrangements. Their involvement is based on Security Council resolution 819 adopted last Friday, which demanded that Srebrenica and its environs should be treated as a safe area.
There has been heavy fighting between Muslim and Croat forces in central Bosnia. Some of our troops, the Cheshires, are stationed in the area. They are doing what they can to mediate. This fighting has brought a halt—I hope a temporary halt—to the flow of relief convoys.
Our troops on the ground, and the RAF in supplying Sarajevo, have done superb work. Our troops have so far escorted 450 convoys carrying 34,000 tonnes of aid. Many of the convoys in central Bosnia are maintained and driven by over 100 ODA employees. In over 400 flights the RAF has carried 6,000 tonnes. The Government have contributed £92 million to the international relief agencies, bilaterally and through the EC.
It was predicted last autumn that almost half a million Bosnians would die of starvation during the winter. Most of them are still alive, thanks in large part to the relief effort. We need to continue that effort as long as possible, because people can starve in spring and summer as well as winter. But we all accept that keeping people alive does not by itself solve the problem. In the end, a lasting solution to the Bosnian conflict can be achieved only by a political settlement. That is why we have given our full support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance. Their proposals have been agreed by the Muslims and Croats. The Serbs have prevaricated, made unacceptable territorial demands and meanwhile continued their aggression with the hideous suffering which we have all seen. The Government in Belgrade have not used what we believe to be their considerable influence to put a stop to this behaviour.
We must therefore intensify pressure on the Serbs. RAF Tornadoes have now been called upon to join in enforcement of the no-fly zone. On Saturday, we voted for the immediate adoption of Security Council resolution 820, imposing further and intense sanctions unless the Serbs stop their attacks arid agree to a political settlement by next Monday, 26 April.
These new sanctions are based on a package prepared by the European Community at our instigation over two months ago. Their passage in the Security Council was not easy. The Russians, who of course hold a veto, wanted to allow the Serbs more time, but in view of the continuing Serb aggression around Srebrenica, we considered that action had to be taken immediately as a clear signal of resolve. We are looking to turn sanctions into a blockade. These new sanctions are wide in scope and effectively close down Serbia's border. We must use the days and weeks leading up to their introduction to ensure the tightest possible enforcement in four ways—by sea, by river, on land and against financial services.
In the Adriatic, there are already NATO and WEU monitoring forces, including HMS Cardiff, which have prevented all but three vessels from entering Montenegrin ports since November last year. The new Security Council resolution provides further powers, notably the prohibition of all commercial and maritime traffic from entering Yugoslav territorial waters except when specifically authorised. On the Danube, there are plans for deploying a WEU monitoring flotilla. Together with the sanctions assistance missions already in place, these should go a long way to curb sanctions breaking. There is a need for better co-operation between the riparian states and the international community to ensure that there are no loopholes. We shall pursue that vigorously.
As for passage of freight over land, the new resolution calls for the closure of all freight crossing points, with limited exceptions. There are problems with the passage of goods across some of the borders with Serbia and Montenegro. Much needs to be done so that traffic is physically prevented from moving except at the designated points. We shall need more sanctions assistance monitors to help the customs authorities of the neighbouring states monitor their borders and police the crossing points round the clock. Finally, on the financial sanctions, it is not so much a matter of scope as of strict enforcement and that is an obligation on all Governments. We must ensure that there are no weak points.
We know that Serbia is already hard hit by sanctions and vulnerable to tighter sanctions, provided—and it is a big proviso—that they are properly enforced. This is a strenuous task and many international organisations are involved. I have proposed the appointment of a co-ordinator, who would have to be high powered, to build up this work and, when necessary, knock heads together. So much for the sanctions resolution passed at the weekend and which now has to be enforced.
Against the background that I have sketched, which is familiar to all hon. Members, we cannot refuse to look at all ideas, including those which have been considered before but not adopted. The debate on other options is at a similar stage in London as in the capitals of our major partners. I think that the House would agree that it is essential that policy should be agreed by the international community. I shall mention two such options, those which are most often discussed in the media and probably in the House.
There have been calls for removal of the mandatory United Nations arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. The House will be aware of the Government's reservations about that. The move would require Russian consent in a new Security Council resolution. I do not believe that relaxation would in practice be limited to one party. This would be in effect letting the parties fight it out—Serb against Muslim, Muslim against Croat, as today in central Bosnia, and Croat against Serb. The Government recognise that it would give the Muslims the opportunity to gain better access to the arms that they need. There is the danger that it might prolong and extend the conflict and would undoubtedly put into serious question our ability to sustain our humanitarian effort.
There are also advocates of air strikes against selected Serb targets as a way of putting further pressure on the Serbs to sign the Vance-Owen plan and, indeed, to reduce the risk of attacks on further Muslim enclaves. Discussion of that is at much the same stage in different capitals.
We have considered the options again this morning. We must take account of the view of our military advisers that such strikes would probably have only limited military value unless supported by troops on the ground, given the nature of the terrain and the nature of the conflict. We must take into account the high risk of civilian casualties. I think that that risk would be very high. As with other options, we cannot rule out anything as the situation develops.
We shall stay in close touch with our allies and partners, but we should not go down this or any other route without a reasonable judgment that it would do more good than harm. We should not lightly jeopardise the continued humanitarian role played by the United Nations and by our own forces. We need to consider not just what sounds satisfying today—or even tomorrow—but where we might stand, say, four or five weeks, or four or five months, after the first air strike or the first delivery of arms.
The anger and frustration aroused by the savageries in eastern Bosnia are entirely justified. Our objectives are— indeed, must be—to make the Bosnian Serbs and the Serb Government abandon the pursuit of their aims by the use of force; to prevent the fighting from spreading to Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia or elsewhere; to provide the wherewithal, through the Vance-Owen process, for a just political solution; and to relieve the needs of the hungry and the sick.
As the Prime Minister said last night, the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs should realise that there will be no acceptance for, and therefore no stability in, gains achieved as they have sought to achieve them. Their only hope for a stable, let alone a prosperous, future lies in changing course and bringing these horrors to an end.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's decision to respond to our request for a statement about the situation in Bosnia. Will he assure the House that he will keep us informed about what is a very delicate position, as well as a dangerous and fragile one? If events take a significantly different course, we shall expect further statements from him this week.
I support what the Foreign Secretary said about the work that our troops are doing at present, in incredibly difficult circumstances. Should we not remind ourselves and the country—including the commentators who continue to say that nothing is being done—that enormous achievements have resulted from the deployment of our troops in support of the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations? It ill becomes those of us who sit comfortably at home to undermine or belittle those efforts. I urge everyone, regardless of their views—I know that there are wide differences of view—to give our troops the wholehearted support that they deserve and have earned.
Like the Foreign Secretary, I welcome the fragile ceasefire that has been arranged around Srebrenica; but experience tells us that, like many ceasefires before it, it is unlikely to endure. There is therefore no point in sitting back and waiting for further developments: further pressure must be brought to bear now on Serbia and its clients, the Bosnian Serbs.
I welcome the change of mind displayed by Her Majesty's Government, for which we asked a week ago. We asked the Government to seek an immediate recall of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the

circumstances in Bosnia, and to set aside President Yeltsin's objections to such a meeting. We all recognise the difficulties and the political circumstances in Russia, but they were no reason for standing aside or delaying a meeting of the Security Council to consider the deteriorating circumstances in Bosnia and the potential slaughter of 50,000 people in Srebrenica. So that change of heart was welcome.
I cannot welcome, however, the decision once again to delay further sanctions against Serbia. The existing mandatory sanctions were implemented by the United Nations Security Council in May 1992. The reality is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been calling for the rigorous implementation of those sanctions since then, for an economic blockade of Serbia, which there has been no attempt to put in place. That was recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a few weeks ago when he spoke in Committee about licensing, and specifically the licensing of trade to Croatia, and said:
There is no precise estimate of evasion, but more than 466 licences have been issued and only 60 have been returned. The Committee will appreciate that there is an enormous hole somewhere into which all those goods are going."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 17 March 1993, c. 4.]
That is an admission by a Minister that existing sanctions are not being implemented effectively. We know from comments outside, including those made by Lord Owen, that large sums are being laundered in the same way that criminals, including drug operators, launder their moneys. That is being done with the assistance of the banking system in Europe, and that should be stopped, too.
We can welcome the belated determination to apply additional sanctions, but I believe that it is idle to suppose that they can be applied quickly enough or effectively enough to bring the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table again.
I agree with what the Foreign Secretary said in support of the mandatory arms embargo. The Labour party is committed in its constitution to the United Nations. My colleagues and I support the decisions of the Security Council, and especially the arms embargo. It seems ridiculous that the people who are arguing for an end to the embargo are, in the next sentence, advocating military intervention on the ground in Bosnia.
We could not abrogate the arms embargo in respect of the Muslims alone. The supporters of the Serbs and those of the Croatians would pour additional weapons into the appalling conflict. We should emphatically endorse the embargo against all the protagonists. We would not support any unilateral abrogation of it, whether by the United States of America or by any other country.
Nor do we accept that there is any sensible or legitimate argument for intervention by ground forces. We believe, however—I impress upon the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government generally the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition this weekend—that it is time that the Security Council issued an ultimatum to the Serbs. It is now overdue for the United Nations to insist that, first, there should be safe passage for refugees, for women and children, for the wounded and for soldiers who have surrendered in places such as Srebrenica. There should be a permanent ceasefire and the Serbs should agree to sign the Owen-Vance peace plan. Unless they are prepared to


do that, the Security Council should consider authorising a punitive air strike against the Serbs' supply lines in Bosnia.
I do not say that lightly because I recognise that there is no such thing as a clinical military action and that the risk of civilian casualities would be significant. I also agree that, before such action could be contemplated, we would have to consider the whole future of the humanitarian aid effort and the participation of our troops in it because we would not endorse any action that placed them in jeopardy on the ground in Bosnia. It may be—we should not shrink from this reality—that such an action and the continuation of the humanitarian aid effort are mutually exclusive and that we could have one or the other, but not both. That is a matter for very difficult and serious political judgment.
I understand as well as anyone the anger and the anguish which is being expressed in the House and throughout the country, but no one, especially not hon. Members, should pretend that there are any simple or quick military solutions which could be imposed on the circumstances that prevail in Bosnia or the former Yugoslavia as a whole.
We support a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, although we do not think that it goes far enough. I urge on him serious consideration of further discussions in the Security Council along the lines that I have suggested.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for most of what he said. I of course undertake that we shall continue to keep the House informed. I welcome what he said, which was in harmony with what I said, about the role of our forces.
On the Security Council, there is no change of mind on our part in the timing of the debate or the timing of implementation. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that nothing can be agreed in these matters without Russian acquiescence. In the past fortnight I have had several meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister, as have others. It was only at the weekend that, after many difficulties, the Russians were brought to accept an immediate vote and implementation next week. It is not to be taken for granted, and it is not to be taken for granted in the future. It is a matter not of delay or prevarication on our part but of obtaining the absolutely necessary acquiescence of Russia for the measures that have been taken. Thank heavens that, in the end, the Russians felt able to acquiesce.
The right hon. Gentleman is not entirely accurate about sanctions, although I agree that implementation, especially on the financial side, leaves much to be desired. I mentioned the flotilla in the Adriatic. There is no doubt that it has managed to check what was at one time a substantial inflow of sanctions-barred traffic into the Montenegrin ports. Equally, the right hon. Gentleman knows about the sanctions-assistance missions already in place in the Danube states, but the general thrust of his comments is perfectly right: it is partly a matter of making better use of existing sanctions, and it is now a matter of finding effective machinery for enforcing the nevi ones voted 48 hours ago.
I agree with and am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the arms embargo. He put it well. However, I have a little difficulty with his point about air strikes. I understand the reasoning behind what

the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman said. They are saying that the Security Council should give an ultimatum to the Serbs to deal with a number of matters, some of which are being dealt with, such as arrangements for Srebrenica, and that, if the Serbs did not comply after a time, there would be a single punitive air strike. He went on to show that he understands that that would put at risk the humanitarian effort which we are undertaking and which is saving a great many lives.
The right hon. Gentleman did not say on which side he would come down if it turned out that one was at the expense of the other. I cannot see a great deal of point in a single punitive air strike if that put at risk the whole United Nations' humanitarian effort.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposals simply illustrate the difficulties. I repeat that we are not excluding action of that kind because we work with our allies and our partners, but before we decide together on action we want to be sure that it would in practice—because we cannot bluff in these matters—leave the situation better than it is today.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the main calls coming from the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference that ended in New Delhi on Saturday was for the urgent assembling of an international parliamentary mission to visit the former Yugoslavia? Does he agree that, given that Yugoslavia is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union but not of the United Nations, such an exercise is worthy of consideration? Will he keep his mind open on that possibility?

Mr. Hurd: I will examine my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is a matter not so much of organising parliamentary missions but of parliamentarians of all kinds and of all countries making clear to those who are or who have been parliamentarians in the republics of Yugoslavia the sense of anger and frustration that is evident in this country and in all others.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it would be possible, practicable and in accordance with existing Security Council resolutiion 757 for the United Nations to deploy troops between the advancing Serbs and the Muslim enclaves to prevent further shelling and advance? There is much evidence to suggest that that approach would be acceptable to Serb and Muslim alike. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any further information about the meeting yesterday between General Phillipe Morillon and Dr. Karadzic concerning the possibility of the United Nations taking control of the administration of Srebrenica?

Mr. Hurd: There are talks also today about the administration of Srebrenica and the various points at issue in the ceasefire which has been negotiated—and which is holding so far. That is a continuing discussion. The hon. Gentleman's first point was raised in correspondence between the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We do not believe that the existing Security Council mandate covers the kind of exercise that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is difficult to envisage such an


exercise, which would be extremely dangerous. I am not sure how long those troops would be held in position. I do not myself believe that is a workable plan.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that since the war two principles have successfully guided NATO foreign policy—the doctrine of the deterrent, and recognition that sanctions generally are not very effective in bringing about a result quickly? Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us find it difficult to understand why those two principles have not been more in evidence in the last 18 months? Will he now make it quite plain that Serbia knows that they are in evidence now?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's points are well taken. Of course we know the track record for sanctions. It shows that a country can be substantially weakened but that sanctions do not automatically bring about a change of policy. I think that is a fair statement. If one considers Serbia's location on the map and its needs, one finds that Serbia is vulnerable to sanctions—but sanctions must be enforced before that can be true. I return to the point made by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Enforcement has started and has already caused substantial difficulty and ruinous inflation to Serbia. That must now be carried forward.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Do none of the second-rate Ministers in this third-rate Administration realise that their spunklessness in backing the Vance-Owen plan, which is hopeless and now dead, and in pursuing the ineffectiveness of sanctions, which the Foreign Secretary is still bumbling on about, has led to the death of thousands upon thousands of Bosnian Muslims who have not had the weapons to defend themselves? Will the Prime Minister now work with his US and EC colleagues to introduce terms which actually stop Serb aggression, by bombing their communications, their lines of supply, their airfields and the arms factories that are supplying them, before thousands more die in this exercise of ethnic cleansing in greater Serbia and before the war spreads to Kosovo and Macedonia?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman does not take into account the points that I made about the effectiveness of bombing. It is all very well for him, in that stentorian tone, to make those eloquent phrases. We have to be sure, the House has to be sure, before we go down that path, that the result will be the saving of lives and an improvement in the position. Those who advocate that kind of wholesale approach produce no evidence to that effect. Our advice is the other way. We have to take it into account.
I am not saying—the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for this—that we can sit back and suppose that existing policies are sufficient. They obviously have not been sufficient to change the policies of the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs, but in looking for ways of strengthening them, which is what we have to do, we have to take into account the probabilities and look ahead, as I have said, not just to the satisfactions of tomorrow but to where we would be in five or six months' time, or in two or three years' time, if we went down the path that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking): Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great achievements of the presence of United Nations troops is not just the bringing in of food and medicine or the evacuation of the sick and wounded but the prevention of even worse massacres than have already taken place, whether they be in Srebrenica, Sarajevo or elsewhere, and that it is very important to remember that fact?
My right hon. Friend speaks, choosing his words with care, of savages in eastern Bosnia. Can he assure the House that the United Nations is taking every possible step to collect evidence against those savages so that they can eventually be brought to book for the crimes that they are committing?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point—and, indeed, with his second; yes, indeed, the Security Council has given its view on that. Evidence is being collected. I hope that it will not be too long before the necessary international criminal jurisdiction comes into being.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Would not those who are pressing Her Majesty's Government to take spectacular action of the kind recommended by the news industry be wise to heed the words of Lord Healey, who had battlefield experience, and who fully understands the meaning of the maxim that no military plan survives contact with the enemy?

Mr. Hurd: I did not hear Lord Healey. There will be continuing discussion of all these options. No one can be so satisfied with the present situation or the present policies that they can say, definitely and for ever, that those kinds of option will always be rejected. I want to make that clear to the House. But the right hon. Gentleman is right. Before one goes down this route, one has to be sure, out of experience and as a result of professional advice, that the result will be a helpful one.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in Bosnia is anything but simple and that, although Serbs are committing appalling atrocities against Muslims, at the same time Muslims and Croats are committing appalling atrocities against each other, sometimes under the nose of the British forces? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that our response should ultimately be based on a balance of moral imperatives and that, while positive military intervention might, in the short term, prevent some of the atrocities taking place, in the longer term it could threaten a wider and even bloodier civil war throughout the region and that it should be considered only as a last resort?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has the balance quite right. We must take account of events where the cameras are not. The heaviest fighting in the past day or so has been between Muslims and Croats. This is very relevant to the suggestion that the arms embargo should be partly lifted; we must take that into account. We must take into account the very fragile situation in Croatia where a truce is just holding and where the UN forces are in substantial operational difficulty. Those are the kinds of thing that do not come into the headlines or into the news bulletins day after day and night after night, but they are part of the total picture. If we took action to deal with the situation


where the television is which then upset or destroyed the chances of peace in the other areas, we should be severely to blame.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the media coverage of the atrocities has aroused much of the pressure for further action which has been expressed today? Of course all wars, especially civil wars, include atrocities on a massive scale, not all of which are equally covered. Is he also aware that the world community, the United Nations and the western nations must decide quite clearly a t the beginning whether they can hope to lift the arms embargo, to supply arms or to become combatants themselves by air strikes or ground strikes and to maintain their role as peace-makers and agents of humanitarian relief? If the principles advocated today in the House by some hon. Members were applied to the Palestinian question, for example, the logic of what was proposed would become clearer.
Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that before long we shall have a debate in which the complexities, dangers, difficulties and agonies of the situation can be fully explored in a way that is not possible by questions?

Mr. Hurd: I personally would be in favour of that. It is not long since we had a debate on Yugoslavia, but, as the right hon. Gentleman exactly says, the issues are extremely complicated. I thought that his analysis at the beginning was right. The UN now has a humanitarian role. Massacres are being prevented and people who would otherwise die are being kept alive because of what the UN is now doing. That is not the total answer, but before that is put at risk in the search for the total answer, the balance must be struck. Each proposal for helping towards peace with justice must be tested against the risk that it would impose on the UN and the humanitarian agencies, and on what they are already doing. As the right hon. Gentleman says, striking that balance is an essential part of getting the decisions right.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there are two wars in Bosnia? There is a three-sided civil war, and there is the invasion of the sovereign state of Bosnia by Serbia. Will he acknowledge that Serbia has enough weapons and munitions to fight a full-scale war for at least two years and that the only action that will stop the wheels of war turning is a full-scale and properly enforced blockade of Serbia?
Some of us find it a little difficult to stomach the fact that, while President Yeltsin puts out one hand to receive £28 billion-worth of aid from the west, with the other hand he is still giving assistance to Serbia. If sanctions and the blockade are to work, the umbilical cord between Moscow and Belgrade must be cut.

Mr. Hurd: The Russian Government are severely criticised at home for the co-operation that they have undertaken with western Governments with regard to the former Yugoslavia, and that criticism comes at an especially sensitive time. Nevertheless, with some difficulty and after many meetings, as I have said and as my hon. Friend knows, the Russians acquiesced to the very severe sanctions resolution, amounting to a blockade. The consequences must follow, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out. We must build on that Russian acquiescence

and ensure that Russian oil, Russian services, Russian goods and, above all, Russian arms do not reach the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs in contravention of those resolutions.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why sanctions were not thought to be appropriate or workable for South Africa, yet they are workable in a much more immediate and urgent case in Serbia? Will he explain by what mechanisms his announcement today will bring the Serbs in Bosnia to the negotiating table, given that, in effect, they are taking all that they want by their actions on the ground? Is it not the case that they will come to the negotiating table only once they have all that they want—the greater Serbia? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give his opinion on an idea that worked to protect the Kurds in Iraq: how about safe havens for the Bosnian Muslims?

Mr. Hurd: Each case is different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is obviously true. In South Africa, the question was how we moved the South Africans away from apartheid. The Government's predecessors did not feel that economic sanctions were the best way of doing that. I think that events probably showed that we were right. South Africa has moved away from apartheid; but I do not want to reopen that argument now. Serbia is a different case. What we are trying to achieve is different and the country is different. I believe that, if there is effective enforcement—and it is certainly an "if"— sanctions can help to achieve a change of policy.
The hon. Lady asked about safe havens. The establishment of safe havens would involve fighting one's way in to create the safety. That did not arise in north Iraq because, at that time, for a short time, there was a vacuum. We managed to move in and save a great many lives. The situation is not the same in Serbia. There is civil war between the three communities, and very few parts of the country are not involved in that war. There is also the help from Serbia. I do not believe that the concept of safe havens would be workable.
On the hon. Lady's main point, it is perfectly true that the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs have grabbed slices of territory—more ground than was allocated to them, for example, under the Vance-Owen plan—but the position is not secure or stable or accepted. There comes a time when people are no longer concerned with physical possession alone; they want a life for themselves and their children. They want stability and acceptance. That option is not open to the Serbs. There comes a time, as I said, when people begin to think about their own future and that of their children. The present methods will not ensure that for the Serbs.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain what is the British national interest in Bosnia? Will he please explain what distinguishes the horrible war in Bosnia from the many other equally horrible wars occurring throughout the world? Is it not only the British national interest that can justify our intervention in any such wars?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, certainly, it is the British national interest that justifies or does not justify our becoming involved in what amounts to a considerable number of tragedies and disasters. We have come to the view that it is a British national interest that we should do what we can


to help bring peace to Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, partly because the conflict is in Europe, whereas the other conflicts are not, and partly because we have been able to see a way in which we can do that. The presence of the Cheshires, and the saving of lives by the RAF, our civilian drivers and our humanitarian escorts have been good. That is something that we have accomplished, which we could not accomplish in Nagorno-Karabakh, for example. What we have done is entirely justified according to my hon. Friend's criterion, which is the British national interest.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the reasons why much of the population is clamouring for the British Government to do something is that, only a couple of years ago, they managed to do it in the Gulf? People think that that can be repeated over and over again, notwithstanding the fact that there are 25 conflicts taking place around the world.
The other problem is that the conflict is taking place in the European arena. The Common Market, led by Germany, decided to go along with the partition of the former Yugoslavia. It agreed to recognise Croatia and subsequently Bosnia. The British Government—and the Foreign Secretary himself—were against that initially, but they were carried along by the Germans. They did a deal with Kohl on the opt-out at Maastricht; it was a quid pro quo. The Government have now made a rod for their own back and they do not know what to do about it. Let me tell people like those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who want to fight the war with the blood of other people's kids: do it yourselves. If they do not have the guts to put on their own flak jackets, they should not ask me to call on other kids to spill their blood to resolve what is a civil conflict in Yugoslavia as a result of the efforts of the Common Market.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman seeks to bring the treaty of Maastricht into just about every intervention on every subject. There was no trade-off of that kind. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman believes that it would have been right to have held back from recognising the reality of Slovenia and Croatia much longer than we did. We can argue about the timing, as I have said before. We were criticised by many people, such as my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, for not recognising much sooner when the Germans wanted to. We struck a balance about timing, and I do not think that we could or should have postponed it much longer.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us in the House are grateful for the fact that he is keeping his head when many around him may be losing theirs—including those with coronets on? Will he also give us some comfort in relation to whether the United Nations is fully equipped to deal with the scale of the humanitarian problem that is now evolving? Are there now sufficient funds and sufficient humanitarian aid available to deal with the scale of what is now unfolding in Bosnia? If there are not, what sanctions will be placed on those members who have not paid?

Mr. Hurd: There are certainly shortages of food, rather than of money, in the supplies needed to keep the humanitarian effort going. The money has been voted, but

getting the food into the right place at the right time has sometimes proved to be more difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) is entirely right about that. As far as Europe is concerned, the European Community is the biggest donor. We are on at the Commission all the time to ensure that the stores and supplies are where they are actually needed.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the apparently even-handed approach to the arms embargo is, in effect, playing to the territorial ambitions of the Serbs and, to a lesser degree, the Croats? In the absence of resolve by the west to intervene, or as the west has been unable or unwilling to intervene, will the Bosnian Government be able to defend their own citizens and territory only through the availability of arms? The Serbs and the Croats will still get the arms, but the Bosnian Government do not have the arms. In the interests of the sovereignty of Bosnia and of preserving the lives of the citizens of Bosnia, it is essential that the total arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia should be lifted.

Mr. Hurd: The total arms embargo or just for the Bosnian Muslims? That is the point. Muslims and Croats were fighting each other in Vitez today. Under the hon. Gentleman's policy, both would be resupplied with arms. Is that really sensible, particularly if the result is that we have to withdraw our troops and stop the humanitarian effort? The logic of what the hon. Gentleman says obviously has a very wide appeal, particularly in the United States. We may have to consider this, and I am not ruling it out for ever in certain forms. However, before we decide, and before there is any acquiesence in that, we would have to sort out the balance and that is precisely the balance that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was arguing a few minutes ago.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I tell my right hon. Friend how right he is not to seek dramatic instant solutions to this most intractable and tragic conflict? Will he bear in mind that the Serbs and other protagonists to the warfare not only practised partisan warfare in world war two, but have also trained for it in the Yugoslav national army for decades thereafter? Could he at least ensure that the humanitarian effort which Her Majesty's Government are rightly applying is well administered, that they make clear to the French Administration the need for a good replacement for General Morillon, who has commanded universal respect, and that, if no good French general is forthcoming, we will be prepared and willing to offer a general officer commanding from the British Army?

Mr. Hurd: The news yesterday was that General Morillon is continuing for the time being. Of course, he is properly supported by our own officers. I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the humanitarian effort. In view of all that has been happening, it would be absurd to deny or pretend to palliate the conduct of Serbs and Bosnian Serbs because of the history of world war two. In most people's minds, what the Serbs have done in recent months has obliterated a good deal of the heroism with which they were associated at that time.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What discussions have the Government, the European Community and the United Nations had with the Serbs,


Croats and Muslims who have been opposed all along to military activity by people involving their own side, especially the Serbs? Is it the case that discussions take place only with the warlords and the paramilitaries? Should such discussions also involve others? We should examine some of their ideas about the way forward.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I went to Belgrade last summer I had exactly such discussions with the opposition—I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members would do the same. It is entirely right to keep in touch with the widest possible range of opinion in all the republics.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While supporting the Government's reluctance to commit ground troops and inflame the situation by arming the Bosnian Muslims, can my right hon. Friend confirm that sanctions have already led to a 40 per cent. reduction in the gross national product in Serbia—that was the figure given by the Secretary of State for Defence last week—with precious little effect on the ability of the Serbs to prosecute the war? How does the world community envisage making these sanctions effective? What sort of leverage can be put against the Russians to ensure that they do not turn a blind eye to sanctions breaking?

Mr. Hurd: The Russians have shown themselves to be open to persuasion on these matters in the past few weeks, and that needs to continue. Existing sanctions have done substantial harm to the Serb economy without changing the basic policy. We hope—the recent resolution is designed to achieve this—to convert that pressure and the harm which has already been done to the economy into a virtual blockade that will bring about the change.

Mr. Peter Hain: No one would deny that any solution is risk-free or without danger. Why is the Foreign Secretary not pressing the United Nations to use its air resources in the area to target Serbian supply lines, artillery, mortar and tank positions? The policy pursued by his Government and the whole of the west has failed abysmally. The genocide, rape and ethnic cleansing continue and, increasingly, the Government are speaking with the voice of Joseph Chamberlain on this crisis.

Mr. Hurd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his Chamberlains mixed up.

Mr. Hain: Neville Chamberlain.

Mr. Hurd: I am obliged.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I made my statement. Before one goes down the path of the sort of military activity—the air strikes which he mentioned—that goes well beyond what was advocated by the Labour Front Bench, one must have a reasonable judgment that the result will be a good one. At present, that judgment is not there. The immediate effect is to kill more people, including civilians. That is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he said that it was not "risk-free". One must be clear that the circumstances and proposals are such that that immediate effect is likely to be counterbalanced by an eventual good.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Royal Air Force crews which will be engaged in policing the no-fly zone area will have the same protection as that which they enjoyed when

patrolling over Iraq? In other words, any surface-to-air missiles or radar that lock on will be hit and attacked. If that is so, is it recognised that that in itself could lead to an escalation of the military conflict?
Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind when discussing the matter with his colleagues that Muslim communities throughout the world are looking at what is happening in the former Yugoslavia and may well be given a holy jihad to fight at some future date based on whatever is the outcome of this ghastly mess?

Mr. Hurd: I need to check on my hon. Friend's first point. I understand its importance and I would not want to mislead him with an immediate answer which might not be accurate if I were to volunteer it.
On his second point—which I think also moved the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—it is of course true that the frustration and anger that we feel at what is happening in Bosnia is, if anything, more intense in the Muslim world. I can understand that. However, the way in which Muslims have expressed that frustration and anger has been constructive. There has been little of the destructive vehemence which my hon. Friend fears.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that in a speech on Saturday he said:
In the context of Europe, our differences are our lifeblood"?
That is a statement which lies uneasily with those of us who are witnessing what many people call ethnic cleansing but which many of us would call genocide in certain areas of the former Yugoslavia.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that in that speech he laid great emphasis on the importance of sovereign states in the context of international law? That is a matter which weighed heavily on Members of Parliament during the Iraq and Kuwait conflict. It is therefore inappropriate for Members to refer to the current events in the former Yugoslavia as a civil war because we are seeing imperial aggression between sovereign states.
Against the background of what happened in Kuwait and Iraq, where there was a clear commitment to defend a sovereign state, why are we not prepared to make the same commitment in the former Yugoslavia? Why are we not prepared to issue a clear ultimatum to the Serbs that, unless they abide by the clear principles which underpin international law, we shall take action and, in particular, launch air strikes against their supply stations?

Mr. Hurd: The aggression of Iraq against Kuwait was a simple act of aggression by one sovereign state against another. In Bosnia, we have a war in which the overwhelming majority of those fighting are Bosnians —Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. It was initiated and is sustained with help from Belgrade. That is why the trade sanctions and the sanctions announced last Saturday night are directed solely against Serbia and related Montenegro. But the position is different from that which produced Desert Storm.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to impress on President Tudjman of Croatia that, while we sympathise greatly with what the Croatian people had to put up with at the hands of the Serbs, the Vance-Owen plan envisages a federal Bosnia with individual cantons and not the annexation of the Croatian cantons by Croatia?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. In principle, the Government of Croatia accept that.

Mr. George Galloway: Notwithstanding the gibes about the news industry that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Foreign Secretary should be warned that the impression that there is a consensus of complacency while genocide goes on is strong among the people of Britain. The political leadership on both sides of the House of Commons should take that on board.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary the question which my Muslim constituents are asking me and Muslims around the world are asking all the Governments of the west: how can it be that economic sanctions could be drawn so tightly around Iraq that hundreds of thousands of weak, vulnerable, young and old people have died for the want of food and medicine and the wherewithal to keep them alive, yet in almost two years it has not been possible to bring sanctions to bear against Serbia which would halt the aggression? Why was it possible for the Governments of the west to expend treasures in billions and billions of dollars and to move the armies, navies and air forces of the world to pulverise Iraq into obeying international law, and yet nightly we watch on our television screens the Serbian-supplied Bosnian Serb forces committing acts of genocide against Muslims in Bosnia? What is the answer to this glaring, brazen contradiction?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not telling his constituents that sanctions against Iraq prevent food and medicine from reaching that country. He knows that that is not so and that food and medicine are precisely excluded from the sanctions. There is a very substantial United Nations humanitarian effort in all parts of Iraq.
I tried to answer the point about the difference between what happened with Kuwait and Iraq and what is happening in Yugoslavia when I answered the question of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). They are entirely different situations.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the anger and frustration—I do not contradict his first sentence at all. That is the mood at the moment. If we were to be entirely complacent in response to that, he would be right in his criticism. If we were to take measures simply to deal with that sense of anger and frustration—which, in our better judgment, in five or six months' time would have made the situation worse, or no better—we would quite rightly be facing a different kind of anger and frustration. We would have neglected our job of bringing the best judgment that we can to bear on getting these matters right.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), in this interim period, while my right hon. Friend

looks wisely and cautiously at whether other options should be exercised, will he look at the ability of the international organisations to deal with the vast increase in the number of refugees? Will he, for instance, look at what is happening to aid which is going to refugee camps for Bosnians in Croatia? I understand that the Croatians have already closed some of the Bosnian refugee camps in their country and that they are dispersing the Bosnian refugees, the Muslims, either to notional camps or sending them closer to the fighting lines. That needs looking at at this stage.

Mr. Hurd: I think my right hon. Friend must be right. I am not familiar with the details, but if he would like to amplify what he has said I will make sure that it receives urgent consideration.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: We must now move on.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have a Standing Order No. 20 application to hear first from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).

Mr. Max Madden: I wish to apply, under Standing Order No. 20, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the future of Bosnia.
I think that the tragic events unfolding in Bosnia in recent days, reinforced by the exchanges that we have just heard on the statement, self-evidently meet the criteria of Standing Order No. 20. I will therefore put this application simply. When, in God's name, are the elected representatives of the people of Britain to be given a full and proper opportunity to discuss in the House of Commons the evil genocide, murder and systematic rapes which are part of the unmitigated aggression of Serbia? When will the House be given an opportunity to speak for the people of Britain on the biggest crisis facing Europe since the end of the second world war?

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons for it. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about an article that appeared in The Guardian today in which the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—who has left his place, despite the fact that I notified him that I would mention the matter to you—deliberately sought to link me to the assassination in South Africa of Mr. Chris Hani, an incident that I utterly deplore. The hon. Gentleman has not a shred of evidence, but alleged in The Guardian that he was already making complaints about the matter in the House through the proper authorities. Will she advise me as to how the matter can be dealt with under our Standing Orders and what she is prepared to do about the conduct of the hon. Member for Neath, who has previously made allegations—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is referring to a "she". Who is "she"?

Mrs. Gorman: No, I am not. I am referring to the hon. Member for Neath. I said that he was not in his place, but he has since returned. Without having a shred of evidence for doing so, the hon. Member alleged in The Guardian today that I am linked with the assassination of Mr. Chris Hani in South Africa. It is also reported in The Guardian that the hon. Gentleman is raising the matter in the House with the relevant authorities. Will she—meaning yourself, Madam Speaker—advise me on how the matter can be dealt with and how the hon. Member for Neath can be reprimanded for his discreditable conduct?

Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) wish to make a point of order in response?

Mr. Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have made no allegations against the

hon. Lady, who is being extremely misleading in making that suggestion. I said that there is evidence, reported in both The Independent and The Guardian, of links between the Conservatives and the Western Goals Institute and the Conservative party in South Africa—one of whose ex-Members of Parliament and leaders has been charged in connection with the Hani assassination. The Prime Minister needs to get to the bottom of the matter, and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is seeking to obfuscate the matter.

Madam Speaker: Thankfully, I have no responsibililty for what one Member of Parliament says about another. The hon. Members must sort it out among themselves.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the decision that you have just taken on the Standing Order No. 20 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), but you would probably agree that, in view of on-going events, there is need for an urgent debate on Yugoslavia. Through your good offices, Madam Speaker, would you ask the Government—I see that Ministers from the Foreign Office are present—to ensure that there is in the House a full debate, not merely questions, on the subject at an early opportunity?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to use the Chair of the House to put questions that are not relevant now. As he knows, the business of the House has nothing whatever to do with the Speaker. I have let the statement run for quite a long time today, and I have deliberately sought to call every hon. Member who was disappointed last week during the statement. I keep accurate records and, with one exception, I have been able to call every hon. Member who was disappointed last week. I hope that the House will help me to keep up what I consider to be a reasonably high standard.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 April]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): In view of the character of the Bill before the Committee and the views expressed by hon. Members, both in the Chamber and privately, in connection with amendment No. 27, I think it right to make a further statement about the context in which my decision not to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 27 was taken.
In arriving at such a decision on an amendment, any occupant of the Chair must have regard to a number of factors, including the Committee's debates, the clarity or effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill which, if brought into effect, must be both workable and understandable. In the very nature of this case, there can be no exact precedent.
Amendment No. 27 deals with certain aspects of the United Kingdom's position with regard to the agreement annexed to the protocol on social policy. So do new clauses 74 and 75. After lengthy representations from the hon. Members concerned, I have decided that I should not alter my decision on amendment No. 27, but that further debate on the social protocol, which the Committee is to have, should be led by new clause 74, with which new clause 75 will be grouped.
I remind the Committee that I am prepared, at the appropriate time, to permit separate Divisions on amendments Nos. 225, 268, 426 and 420.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful for the further consideration that you have given to this very important issue, and for your courtesy in making considerable time available for us to meet you to discuss the whole nexus of issues.
I cannot, however, let this occasion go by without saying that the Opposition have not changed their views about the significance of amendment No. 27, and nothing in what you have said today convinces me that we should change it. As I have made clear many times, amendment No. 27 is in order; it has been debated; and there remains no valid reason for not allowing the Committee to vote on it.
I do not wish to sound churlish when I say that we should express some gratitude to you, Mr. Morris, for accepting a vote on new clause 74, in respect of which my argument is the same as it was for new clause 75. I do not regard new clause 74 as an alternative to amendment No. 27, nor do I believe that it can be reasonably or realistically posed in those terms.
Last week, I asked for time for further consideration, and you were good enough to agree to that. I do not propose to pursue this matter indefinitely, but I want to make two further points about this decision. The first is to do with the Government's statement last week about accepting new clause 75.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote on 5 April to the Local Government International Bureau expressing a view about the Government's attitude to the amendment carried by the Committee in respect of the Committee of the Regions. In his letter to Mr. Dickson-Smith, the Minister of State said:
No final decisions have yet been taken either on the allocation of seats between the different parts of the United Kingdom or on what sort of representation should be nominated to the Committee.
But the House of Commons has taken a decision on that matter; by a significant majority, it voted in favour of a particular method of allocating the seats.
In this letter, we have something similar to what I accused the Government of last Thursday—a clear, and in this case quite unequivocal, sign from the Government that they may not accept the will of the House in this matter. The Minister of State denied my charge in respect of the Government briefing on new clause 75. He cannot deny what he has personally written to the people making representations to him from the Local Government International Bureau.
Secondly, I refer you, Mr. Morris, to column 685 in the Official Report of 22 February 1993, when you said:
We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27"—. [Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 685.]
The implication of your statement then is clear: that the Committee would have a vote on amendment No. 27. I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments against such a vote taking place, and I repeat what I said last week —that we shall take our unanswerable case to the Speaker, for this matter to be determined on Report.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I should like to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I request that he study with care the words that I have spoken this afternoon, which I accept he has not heard before. He will want to reflect on them.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the selection of amendments and the votes flowing from them are always provisional—that is what it says at the top of the Notice Paper.
Thirdly, new clause 74 will lead the debate, so it is the whole basis of that debate, and I therefore think it has a higher standing than the right hon. Gentleman has provisionally said it would have.
With regard to the Committee of the Regions, the right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the Committee that all Members of the House are bound by any Act of Parliament and the matters that flow from it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I thank you for what you have said today. Will you clarify for my constituents whether having a debate on new clause 74 will mean that the protocol which fixes this new tax will probably be considered after ratification of the treaty, not before it, as would happen with amendment No. 27?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he should read the amendment and put his own interpretation on it.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. You quite properly said on Thursday, and you have repeated today, that the House has entrusted you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, with a


responsibility for determining whether amendments will be called or voted upon, and that you are not obliged to give your reasons. But you will also be aware that the Government have laid great emphasis throughout the debate on the fact that this Bill is to be considered by the procedures of parliamentary democracy.
Of course, it is open to the House to appeal against a ruling in the usual manner—by putting down a motion regretting the decision reached by the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is in no way personal; it is comparable to an appeal to the High Court when a lower court reaches a view that is not accepted by the litigants.
Because this is a matter of enormous procedural importance, quite apart from the merits of the Bill, if this judgment remains, "Erskine May" in all future editions will entrust to future Chairmen of Committees the right to disallow votes on amendments which they do not believe merit a vote. In this case, the social protocol was considered of such importance that the Government highlighted their requirement for an opt-out at the Maastricht treaty negotiations, so from their point of view it could hardly be a more important issue—whereas you have said that, in your judgment, it is not an important issue. That also raises certain consequences.
As you know, Mr. Morris, I have told your office—the Public Bill Office—that I am minded to table such a motion. If a motion of this kind is tabled, may I take it that you would not feel able to take the Chair of the Committee until the matter was resolved? It has long been the practice of the House that, when a motion commenting on the Chair is on the Order Paper, the Chairman concerned does not sit until the court of appeal—in this case the House as a whole—has met.
I should be grateful if you would advise me on that, because this is a matter of fundamental importance, and I have a feeling that, when we read the statement that you have made this afternoon about the basis on which amendments are selected—that they must be clear and that you must know their effect on the Bill—it may turn out to be equally important. It has never been my understanding that the Chairman had arty responsibility for considering either the intelligibility of an amendment or, for that matter, its effect if introduced to legislation.
For all these reasons, I hope, Mr. Morris, that you will appreciate that this relates not to yourself but to the procedures of the House concerning this Bill and all future legislation.

The Chairman: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have not spoken for as long on this important Bill as many hon. Members who are in the Committee. That is why I find it somewhat surprising that even such an expert on parliamentary affairs as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has such great difficulty with the fact that, having ruled out of order amendment No. 27, you have decided that there should be not only a vote on new clause 74 but a debate. I listened carefully to your words.

Sir Teddy Taylor: After ratification—that is the difference.

Mr. Renton: I suggest that my hon. Friend does not interrupt. His interruptions have become a little—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. Points of order are matters for the Chair and not matters for debate in Committee one way or the other.

Mr. Renton: I have read new clause 74, which is what you suggested my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) should do, Mr. Morris. It is absolutely clear that there will be a debate on the principle whether to adopt the protocol on social policy. The new clause is not narrowly worded; it is very broad. It clearly states:
This Act shall come into force only when the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown".
I look forward to that debate, which will be interesting and wide-ranging.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but we cannot have a debate now on new clause 74 and its interpretation. That is why I suggested to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that he should read and interpret the new clause in the way that he felt was right.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Mr. Morris. I underline what my right hon. Friend said about dealing with procedure rather than personality. You may recall that one of your esteemed predecessors, Sir Robert Grant-Ferris, was in your position in 1972 and made a selection of amendments on which there were points of order for 15 hours. He had to sustain a debate of the type that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but the affection and esteem in which he was held in Parliament was unaffected, although the procedure was important.
We are grateful for your announcement, Mr. Morris. On Thursday you said that, after the debate on which we were about to embark on amendment No. 52, there would be votes on amendment No. 225, if it was pressed, and on amendment No. 268 before the debate on clause I stand part. Earlier today, you mentioned amendment No. 426. Will that be debated before clause 1 stand part?
You mentioned matters that have to be borne in mind on selection. As hon. Members know, under Standing Order No. 20, the Speaker must take certain factors into account, but gives no reasons. The factors that you mentioned bear positively, if I may put it like that, on your ruling. Can you direct the Committee to other factors contained in another source, either by reference to a book or immediately?
You said that the matter was unprecedented, and we all agree with that. What is also unprecedented is that an amendment was selected and debated and the closure was moved. You would not have accepted the closure if the debate had not been thorough. Because of the timing, you have said that the Committee shall not come to a decision. Therefore, the historic basis of selection, motion, debate and question has been broken, because there has been no decision. If the ruling is not changed by some means, that is also unprecedented, and gives rise to great anxiety among certain hon. Members.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I shall clarify the matter. Amendment No. 426, if it is moved, will warrant a separate Division before the debate on clause 1 stand part. I hope that the Committee is clear on that. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman listened with care to the words in my second paragraph, because my statement was important and merits study. The statement guides me and the Committee, because it makes it plain that, every day we meet, the provisional selection of amendments is a matter for the Chairman. That provides for the Chairman to change his selection between one sitting day and the next. Events may cause such a change to take place.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have two questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: You rang, m'lord?

Sir Peter Emery: Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants?
When a group of amendments is tabled for debate, it is not unknown for an hon. Member to ask for a Division on an amendment that had not previously been annotated for a Division. It is entirely up to the Chair to decide on a Division. It has been suggested that the Chairman does not decide on whether to grant a Divison, but that is obviously incorrect, because such power has always rested with the Chairman.
Secondly, if, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) suggested, there is to be a substantive motion, surely it would be right to proceed with the debate and have no more points of order on the selection of amendments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's first point, and I am grateful to him for making it. I have no comment on his second point.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Members of the Committee will have noticed that you have accepted for debate some amendments to the new clauses about a referendum, which make the link between consulting the people on the Maastricht process and consulting them on the social protocol. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who is in his place, is quoted in today's issue of The Scotsman as saying that these amendments have
no chance of being debated or accepted.
That has turned out to be a bad short-term forecast, because, as we see from the selection paper, they have been selected for debate. [Interruption.] I understand why the hon. Member for Hamilton is getting rather upset. His fig leaf for not supporting a referendum on Maastricht is starting to be removed. In view of that statement, Mr. Morris, will you confirm that the choice of matters for debate is made not by the Government or the Opposition, but by you alone?

The Chairman: I certainly confirm that. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point of order proves that selection is always provisional.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some days ago and today, you ruled that the Bill's effect is one criterion that you take into account, and that you also take account of its clarity. Without referring specifically to a television programme of which I have a

transcript, you reinforce that by suggesting—quite rightly, I understand—that you would not want to see the Bill wrecked.
That brings us to the significance of Second Reading. If the Bill's principle is one of your prime considerations in referring to its effect, will you bear in mind the fact that, on Second Reading on 2 May last year, almost a year ago, the Danish referendum, which significantly changed the nature of the treaty signed on 7 February, had not been held?
Secondly, the question of economic and monetary union lies at the heart of the principle of the Bill. As the Government have withdrawn from the exchange rate mechanism, considering the basis of the Second Reading debate, surely we should not be excluded from consideration of whether to allow amendment No. 27. Do you agree, Mr. Morris?

The Chairman: No.

5 pm

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will recall that, on Thursday, I suggested that your ruling on amendment No. 27 might well be opposed by a majority of the Committee; I asked how such a majority could make its view known and expect it to prevail. In the event, you accepted the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to allow the Committee a cooling-off period. I assume that it was hoped that, during that period, you and others might have second and better thoughts.
Nearly every hon. Member who spoke in Thursday's debate endorsed the need for a cooling-off period, and expressed the hope that a different view would be taken after it. The fact that the motion was accepted without a Division strongly supports my view that a majority of the Committee does not agree with your ruling, Mr. Morris. May I ask to what extent you took account of the sequence of events—that is, the debate and its outcome—when you drafted the statement that you have read out today?

The Chairman: Let me make two points. First, as I was in the Chair for the whole of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as a cooling-off period, it was not a particularly cool time for me. Secondly, I must and do take every factor into consideration, but at the end of the day the buck stops here: I have to choose the amendments.

Mr. Michael Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. When my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) expressed anxiety about how he would explain the effect of your decision about amendment No. 27 to his constituents, you said that he must make up his own mind about the impact of the Bill —he had been here long enough to do so. Earlier, in your statement, you said that the impact on the Bill was one of the criteria on which you decided whether to select an amendment for a vote. Will you tell us a little more about the possible impact of new clause 74? For instance, if a vote on it had the effect of excluding the social chapter—

The Chairman: Order. I do not wish to amplify anything that I have already said; I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened very carefully to what I said in my statement.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful for your


statement, and will give it the careful study for which you asked. I was, however, disappointed that you stuck to your decision not to call amendment No. 27.
My point of order relates to some extent to what was said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). Although you were not obliged to do so, you explained some of the factors that had influenced your decision, one of which was the effect of an amendment on the Bill. Surely this is the crux of the matter. The effects of different amendments are entirely different: amendment No. 27 would deliver a major blow to the Bill—indeed, it would destroy it, which would please me personally—while new clauses 74 and 75 are entirely acceptable to the Government, because they will have no effect on the Bill or the treaty. We want to vote on amendments that are relevant to the Bill, and have some meaning.

The Chairman: The guidance that I have given this afternoon is very general, and can be applied to any and every amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. This is an entirely separate point of order. May I turn your attention to new clause 80, which is entitled "Transferred Powers (Scotland)"? I rerni.nd the Committee that the Union with Scotland Act 1706 contained 25 articles committing the Scottish people to full political, economic and fiscal union for ever. The words "for ever" are important.
As recently as last month, in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union", the Government recognised and acknowledged that "for ever" commitment. A set number of Scottish Members of Parliament are sent to the House of Commons: that number is quite out of proportion to the number sent from other parts of the unitary kingdom. That is because section 22 of the 1706 Act—which later became the treaty of Union, having been accepted in its entirety by the English Parliament—clearly laid down the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. It also clearly laid down the commitment, for ever, to political, economic, monetary and fiscal union.
Let me remind you, Mr. Morris, that the Scottish Parliament was never dissolved; it was simply prorogued. I believe, along with many of the people of Scotland, that Scotland's 72 Members of Parliament are the guardians of the Scottish Parliament.
New clause 80 deals directly with the requirement to debate, and have the opportunity to vote on, the giving away of Scottish and unitary parliamentary, political, economic and fiscal power to the European Community. I believe that failure to debate the matter may have profound legal and political implications in Scotland. I remind you, Mr. Morris, that the new clause is supported by both Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament, and by the leader of the Ulster Unionists.
There are two groups of amendments under which consideration of clause 80 would have been possible. It is interesting to note that, under the groups relating to entry into force, the referendum and the commencement of—

The Chairman: Order. I think that I have the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is driving at.

Mr. Walker: May I make one final point, Mr. Morris?

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it briefly.

Mr. Walker: I am sorry, Mr. Morris; I do not want to speak at length unnecessarily.
When new clause 80 was tabled, the wording in relation to no powers being transferred was carefully chosen. You selected an amendment under the "Transferred Powers" list. You had produced a provisional list of amendments, and—as is in order, I understand—the new clause was carefully and deliberately worded in order to dovetail with the accompanying group, or rather with new clause 75, which was the only amendment selected at the time.
Following the tabling of new clause 74, we have a different grouping of amendments under a different heading. I suggest that new clause 80 could and should have been included: without it, we may face litigation in the Scottish courts that could delay any Bill passed by the House, and the implementation of the treaty.
It is no good your Clerk shaking his head, Mr. Morris. He and I know that the matter has not been properly challenged in the Scottish courts, because in the past referendums have dealt with the question of what the people think. That was true of the European Communities Act 1972. When there was any possibility of a challenge —[Interruption.] This is important, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: The hon. Member keeps saying that he will be brief. I think that he has made his point and I recognise the strength of his feeling. I have given careful thought to the new clause, which, if I may say so, reflects a distinctive view of the effects and significance of the Bill. Despite that, and the range of support for it, I regret that I am unable to alter my original decision not to select it for consideration.
I say as an Englishman that "prorogation" is an English term. I am advised that the Parliament of Scotland was continued in 1706 and not prorogued.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you confirm that, if your decision is sustained, there will be a class of amendments or new clauses that will be debated and then voted on immediately? That, but for the chance of selection, is a normal occurrence. But for the fact that amendment No. 27 had to take its turn with other amendments in the order of voting, there would have been no time for any decision to be made.
If the precedent is supported—it is an important and, in my view, a dangerous one for the functioning of the House of Commons—and amendments are not voted on immediately following debate, we shall be refused a chance to vote for or against them in any future circumstances. I find that disturbing.
If the proposition were put to the House of Commons in those terms, I think that it would be rejected by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, bearing in mind particularly the fact that the order of selection is in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means and not those of the Committee. The Chairman can select the amendments on which he wants to have second thoughts to ensure that they are voted upon at a stage subsequent to the debate. That being so, he can use the opportunity to decide that there will be no vote. That is alarming.
I hope, Mr. Morris, that even at this stage you will reconsider the matter. There certainly will be criticism that the procedure that we are discussing works in favour of the Government when your function is to act as a neutral Chairman. The fact is that your decision supports or is in


favour of the Government. As amendment No. 27 was the one amendment of which the Government were fearful, that suggests to many both inside and outside the House of Commons that it is not a neutral position.
I have one further point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: No. I take one point of order at a time. I wish to make it clear to the Committee that I am, have been and will continue to be entirely neutral in the handling of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will study my statement on voting. He should study it. I have created no precedents for voting on amendments.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talked about the precedents that are created by these proceedings. You will recollect that, on Thursday, I raised with you the important interview that you gave on the BBC "Westminister Live" programme. You rebuked me for not having a transcript of your important remarks. I say immediately that I was much humiliated by your rebuke, and I apologise for not having a transcript. I have now, as you know, supplied you with a transcript of your historic interview.
It is plain that the first consideration is that the occupant of the Chair cannot give reasons to the Members of the House of Commons for his or her decisions. The transcript reveals, however, that you gave reasons to the viewers of "Westminister Live". Presumably that means that you have set a precedent by which the Chair, which I assume includes the Speaker, gives reasons to television viewers but not to the House of Commons.
That is a most interesting and modern precedent of widespread importance. I hope that you will confirm that it is to be followed by the Chair in all its manifestations. It would seem that our attendance in this place is entirely unnecessary. The main thing that we must all do is buy a television set.

The Chairman: I note once again that the hon. Member did not quote directly from the transcript. He will have to take it from me that I gave no reasons to the viewers. I merely positioned the debate.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have no wish to personalise the matter —I accept entirely that you have responsibilities in the Chair—but I wonder whether you will accept the point that has been made repeatedly: that we, as Members of the House of Commons, have responsibilities, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said at the beginning of these exchanges.
You will know from your long experience of the House of Commons, Mr. Morris, that, when Members, whether in the minority or otherwise, feel that they have been cheated out of a debate or a vote that they believe should have taken place, feelings will run extremely high. I remind you that, last Thursday, you accepted—obviously, I am pleased that you did—a motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to the effect that the Committee should report progress and sit again. That was all that the Committee could do to show that it wanted a vote on amendment No. 27.
Perhaps I might remind you, Mr. Morris, that, when it came to a vote, and when we were in the Division Lobby, we received the message that the Government were not appointing Tellers. We could only come to the conclusion —I accept that it is not your business to come to such a conclusion—that the Government knew that they would lose the vote. As a matter of fact, the motion was carried without a vote. That was the only way in which we could show our opposition to and criticism of your decision.
As the matter will not go away—the points of order this afternoon show that—I beg you, Mr. Morris, to bear in mind the views that have been expressed, including those from the Liberal Bench. Undoubtedly, Liberal Members are much in favour of the Bill. Indeed, they could be even more enthusiastic about it than the Government. Nevertheless, on Thursday, they expressed their point of view, which was similar to that of those of us who are critical of the Bill, on amendment No. 27. If you cannot do so now, Mr. Morris, I ask you later to reconsider the issue and to bear in mind the strength of feeling, which, I repeat, will not go away.

The Chairman: I accept that feelings run very high, and that is why I have given the matter the care and attention that I have. At the end of the day, I have a job to do, and I have done it to the best of my ability.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As an overwhelming majority of Members of the House of Commons are in favour of the Bill, would it not be in order to move on to a debate on principle? Those who wish to vote for the social protocol can do so when we come to new clauses 74 and 75. That reflects the overwhelming majority of those who are in favour of the Bill. As those Members would wish to express their views clearly, your position is entirely understandable, Mr. Morris, given that amendment No. 27 is entirely unclear in its application. Therefore, I believe that your decision is to be supported.

The Chairman: I note the hon. Member's view.

Mr. Stephen Byers: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I take up your decision to select for debate and decision new clause 74. You will be aware that, in the context of both amendment No. 27 and new clause 75, the Government used the advice of the Law Officers to wriggle out of a debate and a vote on the issues raised by the amendment and the new clause. I have no doubt that, in the light of your decision to select for debate and Division new clause 74, some of the best legal brains will be subjecting the new clause to detailed scrutiny.
Is it your view, Mr. Morris, that new clause 74 does not mean only that the Bill, when enacted, cannot come into force until the House of Commons has had a chance to debate and vote on the inclusion of the social chapter? In this instance, the constitutional position is different from the legal position. Constitutionally, Her Majesty's Government cannot move to ratify the Maastricht treaty until such a debate and vote have taken place.

The Chairman: That is a matter for debate when we get to it.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In your statement explaining why you would not allow the Committee a vote on amendment No. 27, you said that the Chair would not allow a separate


Division on an amendment if the Chair believed that the amendment was insufficiently clear and had doubts about its effect on the Bill. In saying that, you were in effect the custodian of the Bill rather than the custodian of the rights of the Committee.
The amendment's effect was perfectly clear to the Committee: it would have involved the disbursement of public funds to pay for the implementation of the social chapter by the 11 other members of the Community. You, as Chairman of Ways and Means, have a responsibility to ensure that the Committee has a chance to vote on it. Will you duly reflect again?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to move into the argument again. I ask him to study the words that I used. I said that, in arriving at such a decision on an amendment, I was giving general guidance.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In the event of either or both new clauses 74 and 75 being withdrawn, would you need to reconsider your decision on voting on amendment No. 27?

The Chairman: That is hypothetical.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to associate myself with the remarks by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and all the others who have spoken in a similar vein, because the abandonment of so many amendments and our right to vote on them has enormous constitutional consequences for the running of the Chamber. I remind you, Mr. Morris, of what you reminded us of last Thursday, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) also referred. You said:
We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27, and other developments may occur at any time, but at this juncture I am minded to take seriously the need for a further debate before the Committee votes on that amendment".— [Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 685.]
All the subsequent arguments of which you advised us were about whether there would be a debate before we voted on amendment No. 27. If your ruling stands, you will be setting a precedent whereby the Committee will not be sure whether we can move and vote on amendments, because you are setting aside all votes on virtually all amendments tabled by Members of good standing. How do we express our view? That is why I wish to associate myself with the burden of the argument made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

The Chairman: It is the hon. Gentleman's right to interpret as he wishes, but his interpretation is not necessarily shared by the Chair or anyone else. My words to the Committee were very clear right from the start: I am totally impartial in this matter. Hon. Members will have to accept that, whether they like it or not. They can put whatever interpretation they like on that, and everyone —not least the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—should recognise that statement from me.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will you please advise us, Mr. Morris, how the Committee is to express its wish to vote on amendment No. 27? What means and procedures are available to the Committee to do so?

The Chairman: Hon. Members can make representations but, at the end of the day, the power rests with the Chair, and the Chair has ruled.

Mr. Roger Knapman: We know that you have given very careful thought to the selection of amendments, Mr. Morris, because you tell us so. You have told us that selection depends on the clarity and effect of an amendment. In that case, under amendment No. 27, my constituents in Stroud are being asked to pay through their VAT towards implementation of the social chapter in other countries. Shall I have an opportunity to vote on that issue? If clarity is so important, why has new clause 74 appeared, as it refers to a motion yet to be tabled by a Minister of the Crown? How can there be clarity when the motion has yet to be worded?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must make his own interpretation of new clause 74. It seemed an appropriate new clause for consideration as far as I was concerned.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will you tell the people—not principally hon. Members but those who watch our proceedings and read Hansard—why such a decision has been taken by the Chair when a majority of hon. Members want a vote? How is it the Chair can say, "Sorry, we are not having a vote," even though, on 22 February, the same Chair said that we could have a debate and a vote?
People outside, who believe that the Chair is supposed to be impartial, will think that we should have a vote, because a majority—or so it seems—of members of the Opposition want to vote. People will not understand why the majority have no recourse to further action to get a vote, or even an explanation.
I know of no organisation or society to which I belong in which the Chair is not called on to explain its conduct; in the Labour party, in a trade union and, I suppose, in big business—although I do not know—it is likely to be called on to do so. The Chair is under so much pressure and, having had a week to think about it, is not prepared to explain how it reached a decision in line with the Government's views—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet.

The Chairman: All right, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

Mr. Skinner: I want to know why you are leaning toward the Government. Why?

The Chairman: Order. I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: You have had three days to think about it, and you are still on the Government's side. There is something bent about it. I am not prepared to accept this mumbo-jumbo. You are acting like a Tory Member on behalf of the Government. You cannot convince me otherwise. You have made it clear again and again that you back the Government.

The Chairman: Order. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman in particular, and to other hon. Members who have referred to it, that I am wholly impartial about the Bill. I do not care what manifestations or attitudes any hon. Member takes; I am wholly impartial. I make that clear to every hon. and right hon. Member in the Chamber now, and to every hon. and right hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be the first to acknowledge that it is not the number of hon. Members which decides whether a vote takes place. He will recall many occasions when he has caused a vote backed by very few hon. Members present, and the Chair has accepted it.

Mr. Christopher Gill: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. On BBC2 on 13 April, you said that there had been "a significant Second Reading" of the Bill and that you "cannot wreck the Bill". In saying that, did you not, in effect, explain your decision not to allow a vote on amendment No. 27?

The Chairman: I was merely reflecting the rules of the House in making that statement.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is common ground that amendment No. 27 is quite different in detail and effect from new clauses 74 and 75. It is common ground that amendment No. 27 has been well debated and deals with a distinct and important constitutional issue. It is also common ground that a majority of hon. Members want a vote on amendment No. 27. I know what the Standing Orders say, and I know what "Erskine May" says, but nothing prevents you from telling the Committee why, in these circumstances, we cannot vote on amendment No. 27. My constituents want to know.

The Chairman: I have never noticed the hon. Gentleman having any problem communicating with his constituents, who are right next door to mine. I am not commenting on the hon. Gentleman's alleged common ground.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I truly need your help, as a recent recruit to the Chairman's Panel. The procedural aspects of the present dilemma not only fascinate but dismay me—because, if I maintain my position on the Chairmen's Panel, I may find myself in a similar situation in future.
You said, Mr. Morris, that the Chairman has the right to allow or deny a vote. Does that mean that, if members of the Committee, regardless of whether or not they are in favour of amendment No. 27, were interested in arriving at some kind of democratic determination and tabled a motion this evening saying, "We seek a Division on amendment No. 27", and more than 326 right hon. and hon. Members voted in favour of it, that would be disregarded by the Chair?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that is not the way that the Committee works, and that such decisions are left to the Chair.

Dr. John Cunningham: I noted your earlier advice, Mr. Morris, to read carefully in Hansard the wording of your statement. That implies that we shall have to study the exact nature of your statement tomorrow. In so far as you spelled out factors as to whether or not amendments should be voted upon, I cannot myself accept that it is the responsibility of the Chair to take account of political judgments about the effect of amendments on legislation.
Surely it is for the Chair to rule whether or not an amendment is procedurally in order, not to make political judgments.
In view of your remarks, I hope that the Committee will again pause and carefully study your observations—not least because, to coin a phrase, I do not want to throw out the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 on Report as the Committee tries to throw out the occupant of the Chair in any motion at this stage.
I hope that members of the Committee will pause and reflect, and will read carefully tomorrow in Hansard your statement, Mr. Morris, and not rush into taking ill-judged decisions that may prevent the House once and for all having an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27.
As I said before, I believe that there is an unanswerable case for tabling and debating that amendment on Report, when any decision will be taken not by you, Mr. Morris, but by Madam Speaker.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I have called every right hon. and hon. Gentleman who wanted to raise a point of order. We will now move on to amendment No. 57.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is a different point of order.

The Chairman: I make it clear that it must be a new point of order. I note the four hon. Members who sought to catch my eye, and I will accept new points of order from them.

Mr. Spearing: My point of order relates to amendment No. 426, which, if it is pressed, could be voted on four hours or less from now. Whereas amendment No. 27 received enormous publicity and has been considered by you, Mr. Morris, and by the Committee for a long time, amendment No. 426 will not have the same advantage. That amendment, which relates to the proceedings for direct elections to the European Parliament under article 138(3) of the treaty of Rome, calls for those procedures to be fully implemented in the United Kingdom.
Article 138(3) states that the European Parliament
shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
There are at least three interpretations of the amendment's implications, coupled with the article of the treaty of Rome to which it refers. One is that the procedure will apply in every member state of the European Community.
Another is that the procedure will be uniform within each member state. If the latter, and that is applied to the United Kingdom, it must be noted that the United Kingdom has no uniform procedure. The procedure in Northern Ireland differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to remind the Committee of the debate that we had some days ago. In all honesty, it seems that I cannot win. When I select an amendment on which some right hon. and hon. Members want a vote, I receive a complaint on a point of order from an hon. Member who does not want a vote on it.

Mr. Spearing: No, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: That is my interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Spearing: I am asking whether it is in the remit of the Chair to explain the effects on this country's constitution of amendment No. 426. It will mean either that Northern Ireland has to adopt our procedures, or that we will have to adopt those of Northern Ireland.

The Chairman: The answer is no, that is not in the remit of the Chair.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I said that I would call four hon. Members who had stood in their places, and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was one of them.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it a Standing Order or a matter of practice as to whether or not reasons are given for selecting amendments and apparently for allowing Divisions? If the latter, by what practice, because page 405 of "Erskine May"—

The Chairman: Order. It is a matter of practice. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cash: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I have called Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As the Committee will debate the Bill again on Wednesday, can you say whether a motion of no confidence would take precedence over further debate in Committee? It seems to me highly desirable—arising out of your refusal to allow a Division on amendment No. 27—to allow a debate on that issue and to vote on it. Also, would such a debate be limited to three hours, or would it occupy the whole of Wednesday?

The Chairman: Those matters are not for me.

Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have voiced over the past half an hour deep-seated concern about certain aspects of Committee procedures. You seemed to suggest that right hon. and hon. Members would be restricted to raising one point of order. Is that the case?

The Chairman: I find it rather easier to deal with one point of order at a time. Mr. Walker—this is the last point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you confirm that your advice is that the Scottish Parliament has been dissolved? If it has not, why can it not be recalled? The advice given by legal brains in Scotland may run contrary to your advice—in which case your decisions as to what is relevant and should be debated may be subject to revision. The Maastricht treaty goes right to the heart of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England. I speak as a unionist and as a supporter of this unitary Parliament. Because I care so deeply, I believe that we will be in danger of entering into the worst possible political, economic and legal minefield if we get it wrong.

The Chairman: I receive very good advice, especially on Scottish matters.
I may comment finally, especially to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), that of course "Erskine May" is all about procedure.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
`but not Article 201 in Title II thereof'.
I have been waiting since four o'clock last Thursday to introduce this important amendment, which is the only one in my name to be selected for separate debate. Unfortunately, I have contracted a cold, but I hope that I shall still be able to make an extensive speech.
It is a great help to have my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in his place on the Treasury Bench. We regard him as one of the more constructive members of the Government. While we know that they all have their assets, my right hon. Friend is someone who is constructive, looks forward and tries to solve problems.
The amendment is designed to suggest to the Committee how we might solve some of the appalling problems that face the European Community, of which both its supporters and opponents are well aware. We are well aware, from the small number of hon. Members who attend these debates, that hon. Members do not want to listen to the arguments. Nevertheless, there is a deep-down feeling throughout the House of Commons that things are going terribly wrong with the European Community: that the EC's share of world trade is going down and down, that unemployment in the EC is soaring and that expenditure by the EC is riddled with graft and corruption. The tragedy is that no one has the slightest idea what to do about it.
My impression is that most members of the Government party, who are now sickened with the whole EC business, are genuinely not sure what on earth they should do. They are worried about the EC, but they say, "We've got to support the Prime Minister. The negotiations are too far advanced. We don't know which way to turn, so what on earth else should we do?"
The impression that I have gained throughout the whole debate on the treaty is that hon. Members feel that we are stuck on a tightrope, that we are heading towards a cliff and that we cannot turn either to the right or to the left, or even back. No one, apart from the Liberal Democrats—who, I accept, are sincere people, as we have seen in all our debates on the treaty—seems to be genuinely supportive of Maastricht. No one seems to think that Maastricht will be a good deal. The Government talk about Maastricht, warts and all. They say that they do not want to improve Maastricht, despite warts and all. Some of my hon. Friends say, "Don't worry about the Maastricht treaty; the exchange rate mechanism won't come back", even though the treaty makes it clear that we must try to get back into the ERM from 1 January next.
In this amendment I am suggesting an answer that might bring all hon. Members, both supporters and opponents of Maastricht, together and solve some of the problems that worry them. The amendment suggests that we should delete article 201 on page 56 of the treaty.

Mr. Marlow: I have read my hon. Friend's amendment. It is a good one. I am looking forward to the rest of his speech. My hon. Friend suggests, in effect, that we should


take the Community's budget away. That is a very good idea. However, would not a better way of approaching it be to adopt another suggestion? My hon. Friend is well aware of the fact that about a fortnight ago some Italian either jumped or was pushed from a 16th floor window in Brussels. There are allegations that he was tied up with the Mafia. There are also allegations that £1,000 million of our money has been misapplied through some fraud related to tobacco. Should there not be a total review of the Commission and of all who work in it, in terms of where there is fraud, where there is not fraud, whether money has been properly applied and the involvement of the Mafia in the Commission? Should not that be a matter of great urgency and should not that inquiry take place before there is any further debate on this wretched piece of paper that we are concerned with?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appeal to hon. Members not to pay attention to that. It has been tried time and time again. The trouble with people who are positive about the EC is that we have tried all this before. For example, an organisation looked into all the fraud and all the rubbish. It said that it would do the job for us. Then we had Maastricht. A fraud department was to be set up. According to the Maastricht treaty, the idea is that, somehow, the European Parliament will look into all this. I appeal to my hon. Friends not to be misled by that suggestion. It will not work. We have heard talk of the common agricultural policy being reformed. It cannot be reformed. I appeal to the Committee, and in particular to the Paymaster General, to give a message to the European Community about where Britain wants it to go and how we can make the EC work more effectively.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can the hon. Gentleman emphasise one simple fact: that the powers to audit and change the rules relating to fraud and to take action against those found guilty of defrauding the EC have existed since the earliest treaties and that the European Parliament has never chosen to use those powers properly, nor has any subsequent Commission?

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Lady is so right. I heard her in European Standing Committee A, before I was chucked off it for asking too many questions, rightly saying over and over again that fraud had been proved and that lots of money, which could be spent on helping the poor and pensioners, is being thrown away. The hon. Lady pointed out that the European Parliament has the powers but that they are not being used and that they cannot be used. That is the great tragedy. Instead of laughing at this, I appeal to the House of Commons to say, "Where the blazes are we going?" We all know that the European Community is in a terrible mess, that democracy is being destroyed, that unemployment is soaring and that Europe's share of world trade is going down, so what on earth, I ask the Government, do they think we should do about it?

Mr. Marlow: If, as may well be the case, the Commission is as rotten with the Mafia as gorgonzola cheese is with maggots, who is it that can sort it out? Is it only the Commission, or can Her Majesty's Government

do something about it? Unless somebody does something about it soon, there is not a lot of point in proceeding with this treaty, or any other European legislation.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is one of the most conscientious people attending these debates. I know that his heart is in the right place, but I appeal to him not to look for an answer in the Commission. It cannot be found there. I appeal to him not to look for an answer in setting up new Committees or new organisations. We have been through all that. I appeal to him, as someone who represents very fairly and adequately the interests of farmers in this country, to ask what on earth can be done about the common agricultural policy. The answer is, nothing. The CAP is getting worse and worse. The tragedy is that nowadays nobody talks about the fact that the food mountains are breaking all records, because they know that there is nothing that we can do about the CAP. We all know that the CAP is in worse trouble than ever before, so nobody wants to talk about it.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: My hon. Friend drew the analogy of a car going towards a cliff, unable to turn left or right, or to turn round and go back. Would not it be fair to describe this vehicle as one in which the accelerator is stuck down and that we in this country are required to chip in and load that vehicle, which has enormous petrol tanks, with a very expensive load of fuel in order to enable that vehicle to pursue its headlong pace towards the precipice?

Sir Teddy Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. That is the key fact that we should think about. We are putting in more and more money and, as a result of Maastricht, there will be a lot more money going into the European Community. This year it amounts to £2·6 billion. I just ask those who sit on the Treasury Bench to think about what we could do with that money, if we had it. Let us take, for example, VAT on electricity and gas. It is terribly unpopular. Old people think that it is dreadful. We, sadly, on these Benches voted for it because the Government appeared to be going bust and we had to get some money from somewhere. If we did not have to make that contribution to the European Community, this VAT levy on electricity and gas would not be needed. We should have a lot of money to spare. That is what we must think about.
What would be the effect of having the European Community without any funding at all? Some of my hon. Friends are absolutely right when they say that we are being asked to put more and more money into it. My first question to the Paymaster General, because I know that he is one of the Ministers who will tell us the truth, relates to the fact that as a result of article 201 it was decided at Edinburgh, on top of all the resources going to the European Community, that there would have to be a new one—a fifth resource.
The Commission was asked to give its view of what this should be. This morning's papers tell us that a new EC tax on energy is being discussed which will result in electricity bills being put up by a further 20 per cent. Apparently, that is to be the first of the European Community's own resources, the one which will be a European tax. The papers say that the British Government are not very happy about it. If we go ahead with it and say to people that, on top of VAT on their electricity bills, there will be a new,


extra Common Market tax of 20 per cent., they will be very angry and will probably lose even more faith in democracy.
The purpose of the amendment is not just to raise a marginal argument about the proposed changes and the extension of EC spending, but to try to find an answer to the problems of the EC. My hope is that the Government will approve the amendment. I hope that they will, because they have been flexible in their attitude and have now agreed to back new clause 75, which was originally said to be a time bomb. They have now thought again about that. I am seeking to remove every single word in the treaty about European Community resources. That might persuade other member states in the European Community to ask themselves whether the EC would be better off or worse off if it did not have a single pound or ecu to spend and if it returned to its original concept, approved by the people of Britain in a referendum, of establishing a body of nations to co-operate on trade, friendship and related matters.
I do not seek to hide the fact that I was one of the "no" campaigners in that referendum and I have never had cause to regret my decision. In the horrendous mess we now face in Europe, with mass unemployment, with horrendous graft and corruption, with the ever-declining share of world trade and with unworkable and uncontrollable policies, there can be little doubt that everyone, with the possible exception of the Mafia, would be better off if the Brussels bureaucracy was deprived of all its resources. How is the money collected under article—

Mr. Marlow: I am listening to my hon. Friend with interest and I am very keen to know what the effects of the amendment would be. My hon. Friend is aware that the treaty establishes something called the cohesion fund, which is a means whereby the Commission gives favours to people in return for support. My understanding is hat the cohesion fund should not come into effect until ratification, yet I read last week that the cohesion fund is beginning to take effect already and that money is already being provided through it. Would the amendment stop that abuse? As we have not ratified the treaty and as Parliament has not agreed to the treaty yet, it must be an abuse that money is being spent on something coming out of the Maastricht treaty.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Oh yes. My hon. Friend is so right. If he votes for the amendment, that abuse will be stopped. The cash should be cut off. What the Government could then do to save Europe would be—this is our answer—to have a Europe without any cash at all.

Mr. Cash: I am sure that my hon. Friend was not referring to me when he made that remark.
I refer to article F.3 of the treaty and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind my reading it out. The article says:
The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and to carry through its polices.
I hope that I am not pre-empting a point that my hon. Friend is likely to make shortly. That article comes under title I, "Common Provisions", which is being shoved through disgracefully by prerogative and which is not part of the Bill. It provides for the union to have the means necessary to attain its objectives. That is critical to the question of own resources. How on earth can anyone justify, against the background of the requirements of this

place—this point is tied up with the social chapter and with all the other matters that we have discussed, such as raising taxation—the provision going through by prerogative? It will be the basis for all the corruption and fraud that we see in prospect.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is putting a genuine point and is saying that there is something else in the treaty, as hon. Members may know. There is probably no one among the newer, younger and more active hon. Members who has played a greater part than my hon. Friend in drawing people's attention to the dangers of all the spending, fraud and corruption. I appeal to my hon. Friend not to ask how we can debate article F.3. We shall not be allowed to debate article F.3. How can we control the spending, fraud and corruption? I believe that we need the support of the Government and that we need a vote by Parliament to say that the British point of view is that we should have a Europe without any resources.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the report from Brussels of a 20 per cent. rise in electricity charges. Is he aware that that will be used as a sop in the Denmark referendum? Because the politicians in Denmark feel that they may lose the referendum, they believe that, to get the green lobby, they must have a rise in the price of electricity.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Terrible things are happening in the attempt to get votes and support. We know what happened with the Republic of Ireland, for example. I feel sorry for some of the ports of Northern Ireland which now find themselves facing wholly unfair competition because of what Maastricht will do, through the cohesion fund, to ports just south of the border. Many of these things are done for votes. I appeal again to the Committee: although there are terrible things and although they are getting worse, let us try to find some answer to the problem.
My answer is that the British Government should say, "We want the future to be a Europe without funds. We think that the problems would be solved if funds were removed. If we do not do that, things will simply get worse." Where does the money come from? At present there are four components.

Mr. Stephen Day: Is not my hon. Friend saying in reality that a Europe without funds is no Europe at all? Is not he really telling the House that that is what he desires? Is not that the nub of the issue? My hon. Friend undoubtedly speaks eloquently about protecting the sovereignty of this place. He also mentioned the Irish Republic. Is not he really saying that he believes that Britain's position in the new Europe that he envisages—that is, no Europe at all—relative to Brussels, if it carries on without us, will be the same as Dublin's position relative to London before the Irish Republic gained some sovereignty by joining the EC?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Goodness gracious, I am saying exactly the opposite. If we have an EC without funding, of course there can still be free trade, co-operation and friendship. How can my hon. Friend say to his constituents—I am sure that he has many poor constituents who face hardship, whom he looks after very well—"I am terribly sorry. We are spending a fortune on fraud, on tobacco and on agriculture. We have a bank that is wasting money like water and there is nothing that I can


do about it." My hon. Friend may believe in a good future for the EC. I believe that it will end up in tears the way it is going. It will end up with people marching in the streets. It will end up with mass unemployment. If there was no funding, the EC could carry on doing all the positive things that some people think it can do, such as promoting free trade and friendship, but it would not waste money with policies that inevitably lead to graft and corruption, as we well see.
I see that the conscientious hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has just walked into the Chamber. I am sure that he must be aware of many poor constituents who face hardship. He must be very angry when he hears about the money being wasted in fraud and corruption in the EC. His people want to know what he intends to do about it. The answer is that there is nothing that we can do about it because of the EC's crazy policies. The only thing to do is to take away the money and put it under the democratic control of member states.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: What I shall do about it is to vote for the Maastricht treaty so that the courts can intervene to stop these things happening, which they cannot do under the treaty of Rome.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is one of the younger and more enthusiastic hon. Members. I appeal to him to look back at the assurances given in the past. Baroness Thatcher, who used to be the Conservative Prime Minister —a splendid lady—also thought that she had the answer. She said, "Vote for the Single European Act. It is great. We shall get legally binding controls on spending. We shall not be able to spend a penny more on the agriculture policy. Things will automatically happen." She found out what happened. I am afraid that she was misled in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has been. What happened was that, whenever the controls were breached, the EC Commission, followed by the Council of Finance Ministers, simply said that it would have a metric year of 10 months, with 12 months' income and 10 months' spending. That is how it kept within the legally binding restrictions.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow that we have been told this time and time again. Decent, honourable, sincere Members like himself have been misled. If we carry on his way with Maastricht, we shall end up in a horrible mess of even more overspending, more fraud and more corruption. His constituents, for whom he works so hard, will suffer just as much as anyone else.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some care. There is a point that I do not understand. There appear to be rules and regulations through the Single European Act and so on about fraud and corruption. Nobody takes any notice of them and nothing happens. Why should whatever is contained in the Maastricht treaty be treated in any other way? If things are not in the national interest of Germany, Greece, and Italy—whether we are talking about olive oil, tobacco or a central bank—why should they take any notice of this treaty any more than they take any notice of the Single European Act?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Those countries will notice if we take the money away because the practices will stop. One of the

interesting points of this debate—I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed—is that the newspapers that used to be terribly supportive of the EC have now become doubtful. Instead of my hon. Friend listening to me, which might involve some heartache for him, he should go to the Library and read, of all papers, today's Daily Mail. It used to be one of the most terrible papers which always presented one side of the Euro debate. It has a wonderful article today in which it gives a detailed explanation of how the most appalling frauds are going on in Greece. It points out how fraud is basically uncontrollable in Greece.
6 pm
How do the frauds work? In the case of olive oil, the Daily Mail states:
In order to show that non-existent olive crops are real, businessmen have set up an ingenious network of fake companies that supposedly buy the produce. Of 152 companies registered as producing olive oil, only 44 actually do so. The EC pays 160 drachmas, about 50p—for every kilo of olives which ends up as bottled or canned oil. Of the 300,000 tons of olives produced annually, only about 50,000 tons go into the country's shops as oil. But subsidies were claimed last year on about 140,000 tons—amounting to £46 million in illegal handouts.
If the Daily Mail, as a great supporter of the EC, is getting worried, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) must be worried, because nothing is being done about it. It is terrible that open, basic, criminal fraud should be occurring in Greece. Money is pouring in and it is appalling that great damage and distress have been caused. My hon. Friend, who I know has taken a great interest in Euro matters, should ask what he can do about that dreadful problem. The answer is nothing at all unless he agrees that we should take away the money and let every member state look after its own resources under democratic control.
My hope is that the Committee will approve the amendment.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have taken little part in the debate over the past however many days, but I think that the Committee is in danger of reaching its boredom threshold, as has happened in the rest of the country.
Does not my hon. Friend make my point for me? Regardless of what is contained in the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, countries behave in their own national interests and nobody does anything about it. What is so different about Maastricht? We will carry on acting in our national interest, not in connection with olive oil or tobacco, but perhaps in connection with a central bank or a common currency. None of this will happen and it is not worth all the excitement or the time spent debating it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: But the frauds are happening today. They are known as monkey crops. Of course, if there were no EC funds the Greek Government could, if they wanted to, pay for a lot of fraudulent activities for the payment of the production of goods that do not exist. If there were not EC funding, that kind of crazy activity could not take place unless the Government of Greece paid for it.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) appears to be arguing, "Such corruptions go on in other countries. So what? The Maastricht treaty will not make any difference". Is not the whole point about the own resources issue—the one directly addressed by my hon. Friend in his amendment


—that we are talking not about those countries' own resources, but about our resources? That is what is at stake and what my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House. If it were just the Greeks being corrupt in Greece with their own money, it would not matter. Should not the fund be called the "other people's resources" fund rather than the "own resources" fund?

Sir Teddy Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. Although I am sure that we will always have some graft and corruption, we want to stop such corruption being done with Euro funds. The existence of own resources means that, even though we have splendid Agriculture Ministers who work hard and try to do their best for the Community, there is nothing that they can do. I believe that the only way in which we can move forward is to take away those funds.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, unfortunately, such things are happening even though the Government, and successive Governments, have done their best to police all those arrangements? While we keep to the letter of the EC law, other Governments do not. Therefore, our country has to bow down and take all the stick.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate how my hon. Friend must feel, because Britain is a law-abiding country, whereas the other countries are basically ignoring the law and grabbing money through fraudulent, filthy graft, greed and corruption. What are we going to do about it? I appeal to the Committee not merely to acknowledge that the problems exist but to consider what we can do about them.

Mr. Day: In dealing with that point, my hon. Friend should recognise that the Maastricht treaty essentially increases the powers of the European Court to deal with such problems as non-compliance to which some of my hon. Friends seem to object so strongly. The mechanism for dealing with the corruption is in the treaty. We should support the treaty and get rid of the abuse.

Sir Teddy Taylor: If my hon. Friend believes that—and I am sure that he will reflect on his view—he should look back at our previous debates. We have repeatedly been told, "New measures are being taken, new bodies set up, new fraud commissions created." We have been told that all kinds of things are happening, but such measures have never worked and can never work. Perhaps my hon. Friend is contemplating voting for the proposals and has been misled into thinking that giving a new power to the European Parliament or saying that we are giving an institution such as the Court of Auditors new significance and increased importance—will help. If so, he should bear in mind the fact that, for years, the Court of Auditors has been publishing information on the basis of regular research which shows how money is pouring down a big drain, but that, sadly, nothing happens; things simply get worse and worse.
With the Maastricht treaty, we are simply obtaining yet more assurances that something will be done while at the same time giving out more money—more own resources. The problem will get worse. If my hon. Friend has been misled, as we have been misled in the past, he should say, "Let us look at the crazy policies that create all the spending and do something about them."
What started as a moderate and limited amount of spending by Brussels has increased and is now set to increase further. One or two hon. Members see some hope in Maastricht. To my mind, cause for optimism is to be found only in future estimates of total EC spending and of our own contribution. The trouble is that they are invariably wrong. I suppose that they help to restore fading morale, at least.
The Foreign Office is particularly helpful in this regard. On 11 June, at column 438 of Hansard, the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that our net contribution for 1992 was forecast to be £2·6 billion, which is about £4 per week per British family. However, in its colourful and wildly misleading pamphlet, produced at great expense and entitled "Britain in Europe", the Foreign Office explained that the figure was actually £1·7 billion. When I asked about the difference, I was told that different ways of doing sums had been used in each case, which is true. Similarly, in Edinburgh, where the new own resources regime was discussed, we were assured that there were firm controls on spending. Hon. Members will see that commitments agreed at Edinburgh were greatly in excess of the agreed own resources ceiling.
The question that I put to the House is simply whether it makes sense to have any own resources at all. Does it make Europe any stronger, any bigger, any fitter or any more just? Does it help jobs or prosperity? Frankly, I think that it would be infinitely better for those who believe in Europe if we scrapped own resources altogether.
The first problem that inevitably emerges when substantial own resources are made available to a non-democratic structure based on nonsensical policies is that a great deal of cash goes in waste, extravagance and fraud. I could provide many examples, but I shall restrict myself to three.

Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in mid-flow. Is he arguing—in a nutshell—that, if we prevent money from being dished out throughout the Community, we automatically prevent graft and corruption by drying off the font from which the funds that finance that corruption emanate? Playing devil's advocate, let me ask my hon. Friend this. One of the arguments advanced in favour of this treaty of European union is that the European Court will henceforth have power to impose sanctions in the form of substantial—indeed, unlimited —fines on member states that transgress the provisions of European law. What would my hon. Friend say to those who might argue that opportunities for graft and corruption will effectively be eliminated, or at least dramatically reduced, if the treaty is ratified?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Why should we bother even investigating the possibility of whether the Maastricht treaty will make it more effective to control those policies? If we scrap the policies, we will guarantee success. For example, if we did not have the common agricultural policy, which is based on opportunities for fraud and corruption, the problems would not exist.
Obviously, there may be graft and corruption in every member state. However, if there are democratic controls and if people know that it is their money that is being spent, there will be some kind of control. If we do away with the policies which are not subject to democratic


control and which countries regard as a means of pinching from other countries, we will do away with a great deal of the graft and corruption.
We know that there is an enormous amount of graft and corruption in Greece. Why should the Greek Government bother much about what is happening unless they have a special wish to pursue sensible policies based on objectivity? Why should the Greek Government bother as they are basically pinching money from other member states? That is quite a nice position.
We know that some dreadful things are happening in the Republic of Ireland. If money is pouring into the Republic of Ireland for graft and corruption, why should the Government there be bothered? What about the terrible amounts of money paid to the Mafia in Italy for delivering non-existent fruit juice to a firm in Palermo? Why should the Italians bother about that when the money is simply being taken from Brussels? If there were democratic controls and the money involved belonged to the country concerned, the problems would fade away.
I want to consider three specific examples of how waste and corruption arise inevitably from the existence of own resources. First, there were the astonishing revelations which originally appeared in that splendid paper the Financial Times about the wild and extravagant spending of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is headed by a rather unusual Frenchman who has no banking experience and whose sole claim to fame is that he impressed President Mitterrand when they met in a nightclub.
We have all read about the monstrous expenditure of the bank on its temporary accommodation, on its replacement marble, on its very extravagant parties and on those ridiculous private jets which were three times as dear as the British private jets that could have been borrowed. No tax was paid on all that. We should not ask ourselves why the issue has, according to the press, apparently infuriated MEPs. Instead, we should ask ourselves how all that could happen when the bank was operating under the control of a Euro-board that includes our own excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We know that our Chancellor of the Exchequer is a tough man who watches spending very carefully indeed. We know that he is worried about every penny of expenditure in this country. However, that Frenchman is operating on the board on which sits not only our Chancellor of the Exchequer, but Finance Ministers from other countries and yet it goes on and nothing is done about it.
The plain fact is not that our Chancellor of the Exchequer is at fault, but that such wild spending is uncontrollable under the EC system. Instead of trying to say who is to blame or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appalling mess of the issue, it would be better if we recognised that the system was wrong and that something should be done about it.
My second example relates to the astonishing and worrying tale of that pathetic EC official who fell to his death from a window in the Commission's office.

Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the EBRD, surely the Committee cannot leave the issue of the governorship and the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just like that. The Paymaster General is in

the Committee this afternoon. Should not we have some explanation from him about the conduct of the governor, who is acting on our behalf and who presumably guarantees the bank with taxpayers' money?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I believe that that would be unfair. As we know, the Paymaster General is one of the most decent and, in my view—I mean this sincerely—honourable members of the Government. I suggest that we should not say who is to blame. There is nothing that we can do about it.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, particularly as he was being polite to me. My interruption has nothing to do with whether I think that he might damage my career if he continues in that fashion. I simply want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the EBRD is not a European Community institution. Although there are questions that hon. Members and Ministers may properly ask, and have properly asked, about the conduct of that institution, it is not an EC institution and it would be wrong to discuss it under this Bill, let alone under this amendment.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course, I accept that it is not an EC institution. However, the Minister is aware that it stems from Euro discussions on how to help Russia. I understand that membership of the governing body comprises EC members.
Let us forget all about the bank. Let us pretend that it does not exist and talk simply about the Commission official who jumped from a window in Brussels. As he jumped from Jacques Delors' office window, I think that he must have had something to do with the EC. He was the chap who had been masterminding what The Observer called an astonishing tobacco swindle which filched the equivalent of £1 for every one of the EC's 320 million inhabitants.
6.15 pm
The Observer further alleged that the sad Mr. Antonio Quatraro was believed to be working for the Mafia. Although he was basically suspended from work for over a year, he still enjoyed a tax-free salary of about £100,000 a year. Despite all the alleged reforms in the tobacco regime, the fact is that the monstrous business of growing high-tar tobacco in Europe and then dumping it in the third world and eastern Europe is costing the EC more than £1,000 million a year—about £3 a head per Euro citizen.
That is being done under own resources. This Government and other Governments have been trying to do something about the tobacco regime year after year, but the situation is getting much worse. The only way to improve matters would be to scrap own resources altogether. The EC must operate without any funding. Clearly, nothing can be done about that continuing and growing scandal. I am obviously sorry for a man who jumps from a window and kills himself on a salary of £100,000 a year. I am sorry for his wife and children. There are all kinds of personal tragedies that might stem from that. However, we must consider the most grotesque tragedy of that money being spent on crime and fraud when there are so many other better ways in which we could spend it.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a matter of corruption and fraud? The very fact that the EC in effect subsidises and encourages the production of tobacco is widely deplored by members of the public, Governments and Health Ministers probably in all member states of the Community. However, year after year, public money—money belonging to the British public and the public in every member state—is spent on the artificial encouragement of the tobacco industry.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but what can we do about it? Ministers would also agree with my hon. Friend. It is shocking and scandalous, but there is nothing that we can do about it. Our Ministers have tried hard to do something, but if other Ministers had tried, too, something would have happened. However, expenditure simply increases, as does the amount of fraud and corruption in places like Greece. More and more money is being spent.
In fact, the EC has decided to set up an anti-smoking campaign to try to counteract what is happening. That is the kind of nonsensical answer that we get from the EC. It does not try to solve the problem, it simply tries to find a way to spend more money. If my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) wants to stop the scandals of the tobacco expenditure, he will succeed only by scrapping own resources. There is no other way to solve the problem.
My third example relates to the disgraceful scandal of the CAP. Nothing sickens me more than to hear Ministers announcing the almost quarterly event of new reform plans. We all know that the policy is in a greater mess than ever before. EC expenditure has broken all previous records, even though Ministers continue to say that the expenditure will come down. The mountains of cereals have also broken all previous records.
Fraud and corruption are endemic in the EC's agriculture policy. It was typical to read of the £70 million subsidy under the dairy regime paid for sending two lots of milk powder to the Soviet Union and then to buy back the same milk powder as animal feed. The first shipment was dispatched from Italy to Austria and the exporters received the first subsidy to compensate for the difference between the high price in the EC and the low price in Austria.
The milk was then sold to the Soviet Union, with another subsidy, to help the Soviet Union in its new commitment to democracy. It was then returned immediately to Europe, with the usual fraudulent documents, as animal feed with the help of a further huge subsidy. No one is sure about the next port of call, but I have been told that the milk is still going round. That is a clear example of specific subsidies being paid through the Eurosystem. What on earth can we do about it?
The Minister is well aware—because he is one of the nice ones—that I continue to ask such questions. I continue to say, "Here is a scandal, here is a subsidy and here is something specific with names and addresses, amounts and the rest of it". However, nothing can be done.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was in the European Community for five years. During that time, such fraud was going on. At one point, the EC Commission pleaded that it did not have the money to fulfil its obligations to 200 Sheffield steel workers who had

been made redundant and, therefore, could be retrained using money from the Common Market. Those unemployed workers could not get the money from the Common Market because Commissioner Manuel Marin withheld it for 12 months on the alleged basis of a shortage of money. The steel workers were not allowed to collect unemployment pay because they were on an EC course. Therefore, they had to borrow money from the Department of Social Security to eke out a miserable existence for 12 months. That is how the EC applies its priorities. It neglects real areas of genuine poverty for which such money could be used.

Sir Teddy Taylor: That is another terrible story and I hope that the Government have listened to it. I could give the hon. Gentleman innumerable cases. I have pleaded with the Government, saying "Here is problem after problem. What can we do about it?" We all have a high regard for British Governments of all parties. Because we have a splendid civil service, the Government have tried to run things in a proper and agreeable way to help our people and to ensure that money is spent properly and fairly. Here we have a vast and ever-increasing amount of money. I am sure that Treasury Ministers, who are good Ministers, must be worried sick about all this money being spent on silly things when there are so many things on which we need to build at home.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from agricultural fraud, I put to him this example. I was on the island of Lewis last week. My octogenarian father-in-law had received an extraordinarily convoluted form called the IACS form, which must be one of the most obtuse documents anyone has ever been asked to fill in. My father-in-law, who has two and a half acres, was being asked to fill in the form with all sorts of cartography and to attach appendices. In the accompanying letter, a Minister explained that the form was necessary to counter fraud in the EC.
While I do not support the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, perhaps he should suggest to his ministerial friends that it is not necessary for the same form to be filled in by a crofter with two and a half acres in Lewis, a large farmer somewhere in the south of England and an olive oil producer in Corfu because the problem of fraud is scarcely the same in each of those parts of the European Community.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's elderly relative in that lovely part of Scotland. Once again, it is the EC saying that it must try something new to stop the fraud, so it is making all these people fill out those big, complicated forms. Believe it or not, the EC is holding conferences and classes to guide farmers on how to fill out the forms. It is yet another pathetic attempt to say, "We have to do something". As long as we have the sort of problems that exist in Italy, Greece and elsewhere, it is simply a big joke. It will simply mean that many British farmers will fill in lots of complicated forms. It will be good for the paper industry.
Instead of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) saying, "What about my poor grandfather and what about the poor crofters in Skye?", he should say, "What will I do about the problem?" To stand up in the Committee and complain does not achieve anything. Hon. Members who are just as conscientious as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North have complained about


such matters for years, but the problem only gets worse. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is one of the most conscientious attenders at such debates—he is a good man, but he supports the silly EC—should say "What can I do about it?" If he votes for Maastricht, he knows that the amount of money spent on resources will increase and the amount of fraud will increase. Despite all that the EC can do about it, the spending will get worse. It is very sad.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that we voted an increase of funds for the common agricultural policy as recently as the week before Easter? We voted an extra £150 million only a fortnight ago.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. I can think of what I would do with £150 million in places such as Southend and Essex. I am sure that all hon. Members feel affronted when they find that people are being told, "I am sorry, we cannot sort out these little parts on the pavement because the local authorities do not have any money. We cannot attend to cleaning school windows as we should do. We cannot do things for poor people. We cannot increase pensions as they should we because we do not have the money". I appeal to all hon. Members. I am sure that pensioners have told hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, "Why should we pay this extra amount of money in VAT on gas and electricity?" We have to say that they must pay it because the Government have run out of money. The Labour party will say that it is because the Government have made a mess. If we did not have to pay our net contribution this year, we could reduce VAT substantially for many people. The increase in VAT is terrible and something must be done. I am trying to be constructive in making my suggestion.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Is not it part of the bizarre conundrum that—partly in answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who was complaining about his poor relation having to fill out these forms— the hon. Gentleman's relation will probably get a lot of money for filling in the form? Instead of farming, he will be filling out forms. A new industry will be created called the filling out forms industry. The money from consumers goes in and people are paid to fill out the forms. That is what will happen. It is an absurd and bizarre situation.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. I do not want to move away from the amendment, but I shall simply make a brief point. I have done the calculations. I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will tell his grandfather that, if we did away with the common agricultural policy, all farmers in Britain with more than 40 hectares could be presented with a cheque for £127,000, fully indexed for inflation on 1 January, at ceremonies in village halls. All farmers with less than 40 hectares, including the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, could get £40,000. Such payments would be indexed for inflation. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will say, "My grandfather does not get £40,000". However, if he adds up everything, he will find that he gets that amount.
If we scrapped the common agricultural policy, we could tell all farmers in Britain, "If you have more than 40 hectares, here is your £127,000. If you have less than 40 hectares, here is your £40,000. You can do whatever you

like. You can grow what you like or go where you like." We would have no administration and we would save the Government a fortune.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Dame Janet, I treasure being called a good man by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). That has never happened before. I was a member of the budget committee and the budget sub-committee. When I was a member of the indirectly elected European Parliament, I was in the distinguished company of such perceptive members as Martin Bangemann and Senator Andreotti. We looked at a number of—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Martin Bangemann is now the Commissioner.

Mr. Dalyell: That is not a generous comment from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Often, there were allegations of fraud. On further investigation, as in Friuli, it turned out that the allegations had been grossly exaggerated and sometimes were non-existent. I am a defender of Brussels on this matter.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. If he reads the detailed reports of the Court of Auditors, he will find that they have been through everything. He should examine the spending. I ask him to look in the Library at today's Daily Mail, which gives details of what happens in Greece. Newspapers will not publish specific details without having some objective base, especially a pro-EC paper such as the Daily Mail. The hon. Gentleman must accept that a lot of the fraud exists. It is specific and scandalous. He must know that, if one has a lunatic policy which invites fraud, inevitably it must go on and on.

Mr. Cryer: It is not merely a question of fraud. The fact that the EC is in no way accountable and at one stage removed from directly elected Parliaments such as this one allows it to splash out money without any regard to responsibility. For example, when Spain and Portugal entered the Community, there was not enough room to house all the officials that were required from those two new member states. So the EC sent home 250 well-paid officials on full salary until their age of retirement, when they would receive a reduced pension. The pensions were not very much reduced.
The EC simply spent millions of pounds sending people home to do nothing. It was like an EC mountain of officials doing nothing. That is the pervasive mentality. If people do not know how to handle something they create a huge reservoir or mountain of it and pay everyone to keep it. That mentality pervades the whole EC. It is corrupt not only because it gives backhanders—that occurs, too—but because there is a corruption of thought. It has no clear accountability in spending other people's money.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised those important issues. I wish further to emphasise that what we are saying tonight is in no sense anti-EC, anti-Europe, anti-French or anti-German. I am complaining about the destruction of democracy. When democratic control is destroyed, terrible things always happen. That is the great problem.

Mr. Sweeney: Will my hon. Friend join me in discerning a certain irony? For the fourth time we have a Conservative Government committed in their manifesto to reducing the amount of paperwork for small businesses. They have tried to make small businesses more efficient so that they can survive the recession and thrive in the future. Yet simultaneously we have a steadily increasing burden of bureaucratic intervention at the level of the European Community.
Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that our Government should help businesses, for example, by increasing the threshold for VAT so that the number of forms to be filled in is reduced, yet simultaneously take the nation further towards European union? Regardless of his views on the European Community, which he has made clear since before we joined the Community, does my hon. Friend agree that this treaty is a treaty too far?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. It is a treaty too far. It will simply make things worse. The trouble is that my hon. Friends who support the treaty know it. I find that almost everyone to whom I speak privately—apart from a few fanatics, whom one always finds—accepts that Maastricht will make the European position worse. There will be more fraud, more expenditure and more involvement. People always say, "But what can we do?"

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend has just used the word "fanatics". Is he referring rather indelicately to the two Front-Bench teams. or does he have some other people in mind?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am not referring to the two Front-Bench teams. I find that when I ask people on the Front Benches who support the Maastricht treaty what good it will do, they say, "Don't worry too much, Teddy."

Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Here is one of them.

Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me in this category. He mentioned fraud and bureaucracy and asked what the treaty would do about them. Does he agree that the strengthening of the Court of Auditors is a useful step forward in preventing fraud? As for bureaucracy, is he aware that as a result of the beginning of the adoption of subsidiarity, in the past year the Commission has reduced by two thirds the number of directives that it has produced?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appeal to my hon. Friend to look back at what has happened in all our years of membership of the EC. He said that the treaty would improve the position of the Court of Auditors. How will it improve it? It simply proposes to call the court an institution and change its role in some way. The Court of Auditors has published wonderful detailed reports on the most appalling fraud and corruption year after year. Why has the position not improved?
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) to read his Daily Mail today. It is the most fanatically pro-EEC newspaper that one can find. Yet it gives firm and specific details of the most appalling fraud. I appreciate that my hon. Friend is a great enthusiast for Maastricht. Whatever his view of the Maastricht thing, I plead with him to think about what has happened in the

past and all the assurances that have been given. If he genuinely believes that Maastricht will make the position better, I appeal to him to consider what happened and ask whether it will make the slightest difference if the Court of Auditors is given perhaps a bigger office, a bigger car for its chairman or more importance.
My hon. Friend mentioned subsidiarity. I do not wish to stray out of order, but I wrote to our splendid Prime Minister the other day about the old problem of Sikhs and their turbans. I asked why he did not use subsidiarity to save the Sikhs from being forced to wear helmets. I asked whether we could decide the issue here in Britain. It matters to the Sikhs. It is an important religious issue. He wrote back a lovely friendly letter, as Prime Ministers always do, saying that he was reluctant to go to the EC in case it took away the powers that we already have in Britain.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh thinks that Maastricht and subsidiarity will solve the problem, I beg him to examine my compromise plan. I have presented my plan today in a friendly spirit. I am saying that people can have their European Community if it is one without resources. How would the things that my hon. Friend wants to achieve be weakened by that? All that we achieve by giving EC resources is to make things worse for the Community and undermine its spirit.

Mr. Cash: I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to make rapid progress, but is he aware that the European Commission has issued a document entitled "Euromyths and Misunderstandings"? With respect to the issue of turbans or helmets, it accuses my hon. Friend of lying. It says:
There is no Community law that makes anyone wear a helmet. Legislation in this area is entirely the responsibility of respective national governments.
Is he aware that I spoke recently to 2,500 Sikhs in the midlands? I am sure that my hon. Friend has spoken to others. They certainly do not agree with the rubbish that is churned out by the European Commission.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not wish to stray out of order, but a chap called John Drew has just retired as the boss of the European Commission's office in London. I wrote him a long letter. I said, "Mr. Drew, although I do not like the EEC, I have always thought that you are a good guy." I asked him to sort out the issue of turbans and helmets immediately because what "Euromyths and Misunderstandings" said was a pack of nonsense.
I must return to the amendment. The last time that we passed legislation, we were told about a new exciting fraud dept in the EC which would sort things out. Now we are told that the European Parliament will do the job for us. But we should.realise that nothing can realistically be done unless we accept the suggestion in my amendment that the EC should not have one penny to spend. If we did that, the various member states could use their own national resources according to their traditions and practices to stop fraud, or could use the money wisely.
We must put an end to the official conspiracy of silence about the appalling position in Europe. The peoples of Europe are being subjected to mass unemployment. Costs are being forced up for everyone. The poor and pensioners are being exploited. Our trade is being distorted and the fraudsters are prospering. The only realistic solution is to cut through the absurdities by depriving the EC of resources.
The second advantage of my amendment and the reason why I hope that the Government will support it is that it would put an end to the tragic unfairness of the contribution system. Hon. Members may have read an article by Sam Brittan, whom some of my hon. Friends think is a very wise man, in the Financial Times entitled "EC—Time for normal budget principles." They may also have read the splendid Library paper on the financing of the EC.
It seems grotesque that, despite the splendid endeavours of the previous Prime Minister to reduce the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC, only four member states—Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands—paid anything into the EC in 1992. The Dutch contribution was minimal. The eight other member states received substantial net payments. As the Financial Times said on 13 February, it is little more than a scandal that the two countries with the highest average incomes should be net beneficiaries of the budget.
It is equally grotesque that Belgium should receive more aid than Portugal. I know that many hon. Members feel that Portugal is a splendid country. It has much poverty and needs a great deal of aid. To tell it that Belgium should get more aid seems to be ridiculous. When this kind of money is shared out there is always grotesque unfairness. People ask what can be done about it. The answer is, nothing. It is going to get worse and more unfair if the EEC gets more money to spend.
It seems wholly wrong that we should allow the "own resources squad" to proceed. Britain will have to pay even more—possibly an extra £500 million, although no doubt the Foreign Office estimates will be smaller. My estimate —and that of others who have studied this matter, including the Library—is that Maastricht will cost us, on top of all the money that we are paying, £2·6 billion net this year. It will probably be more because a lot of the money that is supposed to be coming to us is money that we pay traders for dumping food. But the £2·6 billion that we will pay this year will go up by £500 million.
That splendid chap the Chancellor of the Exchequer said just the other day in the House of Commons, when we asked him about the cost of VAT on gas and electricity —a terrible thing—that it would raise £995 million in the first year. We could scrub that tax and a lot more if we did not have those silly contributions.
The biggest problem of all in our new democratic scene is that opinions about the EEC are being distorted because nations and organisations are so deeply in debt to the EEC for its handouts. The Prime Minister of Spain was received as a national hero upon his return from Edinburgh to his own Parliament and the Irish were assured in their referendum that their money will double because of Maastricht. It seems clear that these nations are not looking at the EEC in an objective way; they are looking on it as an organisation that gives them lots of money. When planning a constitution, or how to run a country or a united Europe, the worst possible thing is that some of the countries, and many of the organisations within those countries, should be dependent upon Euro cash. If that situation exists, those countries will be very positive about Europe. That is why countries like Spain and Greece—not so much Portugal because it has always played fairly in this respect—which receive a lot of money, are saying,

"We want more money for Europe and more power for Europe", whether they think that, democratically, it is a good case or not.
Likewise, at home, the depleted finances of many trade organisations, research bodies and voluntary organisations are boosted by EEC funding of alleged research and information projects. The next time that hon. Members get a letter from one of those worthy trade bodies saying something nice about the EEC, I suggest that they write back and ask, "How much money are you getting for these alleged projects?" The money is splashed round and the recipients are delighted.
I do not want to make any specific allegations in this regard about the Confederation of British Industry because I have not seen its detailed accounts. I can only say that I am staggered and alarmed that that rather inadequate organisation, which is obsessively enthusiastic about the EEC, recently made strong statements about the acute worry of its major members that a defeat on Maastricht could lead to a collapse of investment and a departure of cash from the United Kingdom. That was suggested in a parliamentary brief which was sent to every Member of the House of Commons on 2 March.
6.45 pm
I have secured details of the actual responses that firms sent to the CBI and I am astonished by what they actually said. One company, company A, a major automobile manufacturer, stated:
Failure to ratify Maastricht or becoming part of a two-speed Europe would affect investment.
The other companies all seem to give a wholly different message. I have been through them all; I have seen them all. I shall just read out few of them. Company B said:
Investment decisions would not be affected.
Company C, a big chemical firm, said:
Political considerations are not the main driving forces behind investment.
Company D said:
Political factors would not have a significant impact on investment decisions.
Company E, a major retailer in the United States, said:
These factors are not relevant to investment.
Company after company said basically that it did not seem to matter at all. But, despite that, the CBI has put out a wholly different message.
I find it difficult to understand why an allegedly reputable organisation should send us a brief when the advice of its members seems to be different. What should concern the CBI is that, while our trade with the EEC before our membership was positive, the deficit since joining is now more than £100,000 million.
It is the future to which I would ask the House to look. I ask every hon. Member—and particularly the Government Whips and Ministers—to consider whether it is possible that, through this amendment, we can make the EEC better and solve many of its problems. It is a fact that Europe's share of world trade is falling year by year; that our industries are becoming less and less competitive in the world; that mass unemployment in Europe is causing sickening hardship and that the poor are being hammered by the high-priced food regime.
What can we do about it? The simple point that I would make, in what I hope is a constructive debate, is that if we simply carry on, under clause 1, which I want to eliminate, giving more power and cash to the EEC, we shall slip into a horrible crisis.
If we destroy democracy in the process, we shall pave the way for people to march instead of using their democratic rights. I think that a new message of hope would be given to the nation and Europe if Britain were to indicate that the best future that we see for Europe is to deprive Brussels of all funds, to close the absurd, costly and bureaucratic institutions which have been created—including the ridiculous European Parliament—and to scrap, root and branch, its absurd and fraudulent policies.
Many hon. Members will say that that is a dramatic thing to do arid will question how the EEC would agree to it, but I believe that if one country says that that is the way it wants to go, perhaps others will follow. To people who say that that is nonsense, I appeal to them to look at the referendum results. People said that the only Euro sceptics were in Britain—because we were an island—and that nobody was bothered about us, but now we find that those feelings are shared across Europe.

Mr. Marlow: I am very much in favour of this amendment and I have been looking at a paper about the cohesion fund, which was issued by the President of the Commission of the European Communities on 1 April 1993—which is significant because it is April fool's day. It says:
On Tuesday, the Council adopted the first measures to get the Community's Cohesion Fund up and running. The Fund was able to start operations today (1 April). Some 1,500m ECUs will fund this year's commitments in the four Cohesion Fund countries … Announcing the decision, Budget Commissioner Peter Schmidhuber said that European solidarity, evident in the quick implementation of the Fund, had a vital role to play in solving Europe's dire economic problems.
It has happened; the EEC is spending money on the cohesion fund before we have ratified the treaty. For goodness sake, at the very least, I hope that my hon. Friend's amendment when we support it later this evening will stop the boondoggling that is going on at the moment.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course it is scandalous; it is shocking, dreadful and contrary to all the principles of democracy. What can my hon. Friend do about it? I would say that all he can do is support my amendment and take away the funds. As a democrat, my hon. Friend is quite rightly agitated about it.
There are other scandals. I received a letter from the Consumers Association this morning. Consumers pay in the shops 64p for 250 g of butter. The proper price throughout the EEC is 29p. I am furious about that; it is shocking and scandalous. My poor constituents pay 68p for a kilo of sugar; they should be paying 33p. Steak mince is £2 per pound when it should be £1·10. Lamb chops, which a lot of people still buy, cost £3·10 per pound instead of £2·70. Casserole steak costs £2·40 instead of £1·50. That makes me angry.
What can we do about it? We are putting up food prices at the present time and not bringing them down because of things like the green pound. Sadly, even super-conscientious Ministers like those we have in the Treasury can do nothing about that. They -must know that the position in Europe is getting worse and worse, and something must happen. My amendment provides the possibility of new hope: It would give a new message of hope to the nation if we could show the way in which we want to go.
If we were to scrap the own resources clause it might be argued by Ministers that other key decisions would remain

untouched and nothing much would happen as a result of passing the amendment. But surely if we took that step to give a sign of how we wish to proceed as a nation, we would send a clear and unambiguous message of our determination to save Europe from the EC. I do not want my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to say that the amendment does not achieve what the hon. Member for Southend, East wants, and that even if we scrap the own resources clause, we will still have to pay some money. We should not take trouble with that nonsense as we want to know whether it would be good or bad for Europe to scrap the own resources provisions.
The saddest part of our debates on Maastricht has been to see how the vast majority of hon. Members simply do not want to listen to the arguments. They know that the Maastricht treaty will entangle us further in the economic shambles of the EC, but, for a variety of reasons, they can see no alternatives. My amendment provides an opportunity for us to take a new path that will destroy not the EC, but the nonsenses of the EC. It will not undermine Brussels, but will destroy the corruption, evil and fraud. We should say that the sort of EC that we want is an EC of co-operation, friendship and understanding, but no cash—that is the way forward.
The mere fact that we are able to discuss the subject before the final curtain falls on British democracy and freedom is, in itself, a bonus. I hope that the Government will think about my proposition and not simply reject it out of hand. I hope that they will not use that silly form of words and say that if they accept the amendment, something else will happen. Should not the House of Commons, which knows that the EC is plunging deeper and deeper into a huge economic mess and democratic disaster, state what this country can do?
The way forward is to have a Europe without resources. I hope that the Government will say that that is what they want, with everyone united. We should do away with the party wrangles and should not have Tory blaming Labour and Labour blaming Tory. We know that there are some hon. Members—Labour, Conservative, and even some Liberal Democrats—who are unhappy about the way in which the EC is going. Let us have a united policy for once, do away with the wrangling and say that the way forward is a united path towards a Europe without resources, fraud and corruption. We should have a Europe of friendship and co-operation and I hope that the Government will give 100 per cent. support to that objective.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) rightly focused on the word "resources". In an intervention, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) made it clear that we were talking about the resources not of the House of Commons, but of the British people and, moreover, resources that we make available through our votes on taxation.
As we all know, money means political power, and the two are closely connected. It is no coincidence that we sit as the Committee of Ways and Means. I understand that it was originally a committee on the ways and means of raising taxes to supply the deficit in the Crown's finances to provide services to the country; hence the word "supply". It was designed to supply the deficit in the Crown's expenditure caused by spending over and above the Crown's revenues. Surprise, surprise—the First Lord of the Treasury obtained a central position. Understandably, the Treasury has always had a sort of


primus inter pares in British Government. At least, it played that role until it came up against the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
The function and title of the Paymaster General is fairly ancient, but he is not the master of the payments that he makes to the EC. The House, the Treasury and the First Lord of the Treasury have lost control of the expenditure made available to the EC through own resources. The hon. Member for Southend, East gave many examples.
I challenge the Paymaster General to disagree with the picture that I hope to paint for the Committee and, perhaps, for the nation. The hon. Member for Southend, East is right to say that the resources provided to the EC constitute the windpipe or petrol pipe or gas pipe to its power. The fact that is not fully understood by either hon. Members or the electorate is that that money is not voted year by year on the estimates. It is not voted on in the Budget debate, about which everyone, including the media, goes wild. Under the European Communities Act 1972 that money is paid as a first charge on the resources of the Treasury, whether or not it receives a vote. Under that Act and its financial regulations, which are uprated from time to time, we are obliged to pay that money as a result of decisions taken in the Council of Finance Ministers. The payment of the money is not voted in the House, but was decided at one big vote, which we have to follow, willy nilly.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will refer to the big constitutional issues, but will he also mention the comfort issues? Taxpayers are often pinched as they have to pay taxes and provide the own resources of the Common Market. They would be chagrined to learn that a considerable part of their own resources—many millions of pounds each year—was used to pave the way for fact-finding delegations all over the world from the so-called European Parliament. Those delegations do not involve a couple of Members of the European Parliament, but a committee, translators for seven languages, translation booths to ensure that everyone is comfortable, clerks and advisers. Therefore, we are talking about a tour of perhaps 50 to 100 people. It is outrageous that, when people in our country are pinched and poverty stricken, that money should be scattered to the winds by comfortable Eurocrats and Members of the European Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows far more about the European Parliament than I do. I do not think that his remarks are at all unjustified. I believe that translators have a useful role to play in translating documents, of which there are many, and meetings, of which there are even more. That is necessary in order to promote international understanding, of which I am in favour. However, I am not in favour of taxpayers' money going to political parties in the European Parliament to fund not just necessary functions in that Parliament—as taxpayers do for our Parliament in a modest way—but other functions that are unacceptable to many of us in the United Kingdom. To use European accounts in that way involves its own dangers.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has set out clearly how the European Community finances to which we are committed have first charge on funds from the United

Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman, who understands such matters, explain how the European Community is able to spend 1·5 billion ecu on the cohesion fund before the House of Commons has authorised the treaty that authorises the cohesion fund?

Mr. Spearing: I cannot answer that question. I can only suggest that some good citizen of Northampton—or a representative of Northampton—finds ways and means of discovering the answer and takes the matter to the European Court. I understand that the matter may be covered in preparatory legislation, but one danger of the EC is that it involves many preparatory documents which are contingent on votes that have yet to be taken. This happens time and again in Whitehall. I have even seen Bills about which it is stated that they are being introduced because it is expected that the EC intends to do this or that. In any case, if money is transferred, that becomes a matter for the European Court.
7 pm
I do not believe that the House of Commons or the public at large realise the extent to which control over money and resources represents political power—both of the House and of the voters whom we represent. Our power is no more than the money at our disposal with which we provide the Government, who are the successors of the Crown. As the functions of the EC become broader and the money going directly to the EC never passes through the House despite growing in volume, so political power ebbs away with it. The power to control the money disappears.
The hon. Member for Southend, East was right. We have been in this position before. Some people think that history is bunk, but they do not realise that what we have inherited was fought for and won. The procedures and powers that we hold from the voters resulted from the struggle against the Crown. That struggle, which ended in the tragic civil war and the glorious revolution, was essentially an argument about money and about who controlled it: an argument about who should raise taxes and about how they should be spent.
Now we are holding the same argument again. Yonder in Brussels there is a great new imperium, a new crown. Some Members—some Conservative Members—are willingly giving away these powers, just as they are willingly giving away powers of taxation. And the representative of the Crown sitting on the Government Front Bench is wholeheartedly in favour of that. He cannot deny it when he winds up the debate.
Some of this is already determined by the treaty of Rome, of course. Under article 199, revenue and expenditure shown in the EC budget "shall be in balance". As the hon. Member for Southend, East knows, they often have not been. The way to control expenditure is to impose a limit on it. I am sure that all hon. Members remember that there was a time when there was to be a ceiling on own resources, and the then right hon. Member for Finchley was going to do something about them when they reached that ceiling. But the members of the EC came to an intergovernmental agreement to provide money over and above what was already authorised. Some public-spirited persons took the matter to court, challenging whether we could supply the money by means of a simple statutory


instrument. In the end we did not; we had to have a Consolidated Fund Bill to provide the extra money. The Government at the time had no alternative.
This is yet another example of how expenditure in the EC has left the control of the Treasury and of the House of Commons. If Maastricht is agreed to, more money will depart in this way. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, the money going through all sorts of curious Community routes will grow and grow. When Mr. Delors talks about an energy tax, we may be sure that he is more concerned about finance than about the environment.
The hon. Member for Southend, East mentioned fraud. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), no longer here, countered that the Court of Auditors will have more power. Year after year we debate that court's reports, which show massive fraud and mismanagement. Treasury Ministers know that, year after year—this happened again only a few months ago—they and their counterparts in the Council of Finance Ministers sign away or discharge this money. So does the European Parliament. Year after year, mismanagement gets worse.
I remember a relevant example from a previous debate. It concerned the European Year of Tourism. I do not think that tourism in the EC needed encouragement from official funds. A great deal of tourism goes on in the EC and in Britain anyway, but 5 million ecu—or it may have been pounds—was given away by the EC for this rather nebulous programme, which was the subject of terrible mismanagement.
For our own expenditure, the estimates have to be passed by means of an appropriation Act—we have to appropriate money for the appropriate purpose. Our Public Accounts Committee then examines what has been spent. I know from experience of the Select Committee on European Legislation, however, that this common-sense procedure can be bypassed in EC matters in a curious way. We hear about the Victorian values of the Conservative party, but when it comes to European accounting Conservative Members seem to have thrown away those values. The Gladstonian principles of public Finance appear to have been chucked in the channel.
When regulations or draft regulations come before the Select Committee, we often ask where the money is to come from. Sometimes no money is involved—we are just debating a report of certain proposals. On other occasions, when we ask our advisers where the money is coming from, they say that it is included in a line of the budget. That budget is not even a budget in our sense of the word; it is an estimate of money and of own resources expenditure. But somewhere, tucked in its hundreds of pages, there will be a line about some proposal for some programme or form of assistance or handout or lubrication. So, even though the budget is only observed by the House of Commons, a line in it is sufficient authority for expenditure.
This deserves a great deal of investigation, because all the money comes from own resources. Ours is probably the only Parliament to examine such matters, and even we observe them for only three or four hours a year. Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of pounds flow out in this way; sums of money are shifted around at the end of the year from surpluses to deficits. European financial procedures are nothing like those in this country, and even ours are sometimes not as good as they should be.
As I have said, Parliament had power over the Crown to raise revenue and to spend it, and the two had to be

balanced. A further power which the Crown used to hold we did not acquire until some time later—the power to borrow money. According to article 199, the EC must work in financial balance, but it includes a number of institutions that guarantee and lend money. Earlier the Paymaster General and the hon. Member for Southend, East had an exchange about the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The scandal surrounding that bank has been well ventilated in the media. The Minister jumped up to say, rightly, that the bank has nothing to do with the EC—but he did not add that it is an intergovernmental institution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of its governors. On certain other matters the Foreign Secretary has been saying, month after month, that we should not worry because they will not be dealt with by EC institutions; they will be dealt with intergovernmentally, as though that meant that the Government had a complete grip on them. But if the intergovernmental institution of the EBRD is any guide to the other intergovernmental parts of the treaty, heaven help us. And all this was going on in London less than a mile from the Treasury—yet Treasury Ministers could not stop it.
The European Investment Bank, however, is an institution of the EC provided by the treaty of Rome. Its protocol tells us that Ministers from our Government will be nominated—or at least one of them will be—to serve on the board of governors. For all I know, the Paymaster General may be nominated, but it may be the Economic Secretary or the Financial Secretary. Perhaps the Paymaster General will tell us.
The European Investment Bank lends money for all sorts of enterprises. Its directors, who are bankers—I hope that they are better than some bankers that we have recently heard about—can grant those loans. Article 6 of the protocol setting up the EIB states:
The Board of Governors may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Board of Directors, decide that Member States shall grant the Bank special interest-bearing loans if and to the extent that the Bank requires such loans to finance specific projects and the Board of Directors shows that the Bank is unable to obtain the necessary funds on the capital market on terms appropriate to the nature and purpose of the projects to be financed.
That is a wonderful banker's dream. If money cannot be obtained on the free market, it will be taken by raising a loan, presumably by running around the Governments of member states. I understand that that is what the EIB is about. It does not only raise money and appropriate finance for grants and funds but has a mechanism for raising loans.
I understand that the EIB recently opened a new fund of about £60 billion of credit. The Paymaster General, whose name I hope is associated with permission for that, may be able to tell us about it. Unfortunately, for reasons that I deplore, I do not think that the proposal will be debated by Parliament. The bank has recently expanded its activity and the Government will oversee that if they can —but the precedents are not too good.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Government are against any kind of state funding, so I am sure that they will be interested in the EIB's provision of £1·6 billion, a huge amount, for that ridiculous white elephant, the channel tunnel. Has the hon. Gentleman read about the horrible economic mess that the tunnel is in, and does that loan not seem ridiculous in view of our law which says that no


public money will be provided for the channel tunnel no matter what kind of mess it gets into? However, this silly El B has provided £1,600 million. That is a heck of a lot of money that could have been used for more sensible purposes.

Mr. Spearing: Own resources can be used by the EC's central institutions in all sorts of ways almost at the drop of a hat at some vague meeting whose participants decide to spend our money. I do not think that it is within the remit of the Public Accounts Committee to look at how all that money is spent. That is political power for Europe. It is unaccountable and in a sense it is fleecing our taxpayers.
Alas, Parliament has voted away its powers to oversee that, and a majority of Conservative Members are advocating that we do the same again. How they can claim to be democrats I do not know. Do not they understand the basis of political power in the modern world? Much of it is money and permission to spend it is being given away, and by the Treasury, of all corporate organisations, which is chasing local authorities and old people and cutting everywhere. The mailbags of Conservative Members must be full of letters about that, but they do not seem to worry about the EC. They throw away power and suggest that we throw away more through this treaty. I do not know how they can face their electorates and claim to be democrats.
Power is money and it is raised by taxing the people. If that is not done by Parliament a supra-national authority will take power. People will receive money illegally by getting grants for this or that. More and more funds will be acquired over there if the treaty is passed. That is why the Committee must accept the amendment.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has done the Committee and the country an enormous service by raising the whole question of the budgetary implications of the way that EC policy is developing. He focused, understandably and rightly, on the issue of fraud; I suspect that the Government will reply by saying that fraud is all sorted out because the Maastricht treaty gives the courts power to impose all sorts of penalties. I shall anticipate what they will say.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that all the signs are that the governing EC institutions—the Commission, the law courts and, if Maastricht is passed, the central bankers—are singularly inappropriate and certainly ineffective in keeping track of all this money. That is evident from history. Even leaving that aside, it is a questionable matter of principle whether this Parliament and country should hand over accountability and the power to check and impose penalties for fraud to non-accountable institutions in Europe. That is one of the fundamental problems.
7.15 pm
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in an intervention in his admirable speech, we are debating Britain's resources. As several hon. Members have said, over the past 10 years Britain and Germany have essentially been the paymasters for this whole business. France occasionally goes into the black, if I may put it that way, but, typically, over the years France has taken money out. Therefore, the term "own resources" is singularly inappropriate. To a Greek, an Irishman, a

Portuguese, a Belgian, a Dane or a Dutchman, they are other people's resources. The budget should be called other people's resources, or, better still, British and German resources.

Mr. Sweeney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the commonly-held belief that he who pays the piper calls the tune. This is an exception to that estimable rule because, although, as my hon. Friend says, Germany and Britain are clearly the leading paymasters in the European Community, they do not call the tune. The people of this country are being denied the responsibility and freedom of choice that usually goes with being the paymaster. The Government are agreeing to a process that is increasingly going beyond our control.

Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that it is certainly not Britain that is calling the tune. Perhaps it is a matter for future debate whether Germany is calling the tune in the Community. The money that is being handed over, by Act of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) reminded us, is inexorably increasing. Fraud is certainly one aspect of the matter and the Government will reply to that. The answer to them when they do is that the whole process of accountability for British money is inadequate in the way that the matter is currently presented.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Why do the majority of EC countries contribute nothing in net terms while we subsidise countries richer than ours by an amount which is greater than our aid programmes to the entire third world? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is because of the taxes by which own resources are financed? There are taxes on food imports, and we will always import more food than the other member states. There is a levy on industrial imports and we carry on more trade outside the Community than the other member states. With taxes like that, we shall always pay in more than we get out.

Mr. Spicer: Indeed, that is the mechanism involved in the process that I have described. We are not talking about mean figures; as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East pointed out, we are talking about more than £2 billion a year—the equivalent of 100 national health service hospitals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and others have already analysed the question of fraud very well. What worries me is the inexorable growth in spending that the ratification of the Maastricht treaty will make inevitable. The £2 billion figure involved in what are described as "own resources" is bad enough, but we should remember that, since we first joined the Community, its budget has risen from about £2,000 million to about £50,000 million. Already we are seeing a dynamic growth and, given what is envisaged in the treaty, we are heading towards a worrying position: our resources will be depleted, and not much accountability will be attached to their expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) pointed out that we seem to have slipped from the idea of own resources into that cohesion funding without even ratifying the treaty of Maastricht. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will deal with


that disturbing point. The core of the treaty, however, is the issue of the single currency, which I consider crucial to the question of the resources that will be applied.
In effect, a single currency means a single pricing system throughout the Community; but I do not think anyone has suggested that a single wage system will accompany that single pricing system. No one has suggested that, after the ratification of the treaty, wages in Greece will be the same as those in Germany. Surely, given that people in Greece will soon find themselves paying broadly the same prices as those in Germany while earning perhaps half the wages paid to German workers, there will be great unhappiness in Greece. The same applies to Ireland and Portugal. People simply will not be able to cope. The demand for compensation will inevitably follow.
A single currency means not only the handing over of all control of the banking system and all that it implies to a non-elected central bank, but, inevitably, the handing over of a large measure of budget control. In the past, vastly increasing resources have gone into the Community; moreover, Maastricht and the single currency make a single budget inevitable. That is the truth that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has exposed.
What is the pay-off? There are two parts of the equation. On the one hand, Britain and Germany are to be the only paymasters; on the other, Maastricht presents the prospect of a massive increase in budgets and in the resources required—in essence, from Britain and Germany, but possibly from the northern European countries. What will be the advantage for this country? Ultimately, hon. Members still represent constituents here. I feel accountable to my own constituents, and I hope that the Italian politicians will soon feel the same. Surely it is fair for me to ask what benefits my constituents and my country will gain from the enormous step that we are taking—the transfer of resources into other countries' budgets.

Mr. Bill Walker: For nearly 300 years, the United Kingdom has operated a single currency, a single bank and a single economy. Anyone who wishes to see how that operates in practice need only examine the mass migration of people from the less well-off areas to the wealthy areas, and the large transfer of public funds in United Kingdom own resources from the wealthy to the poor areas.

Mr. Spicer: That is a good point. One of the ways in which Governments have tried to compensate is by robbing the successful areas in an attempt to pay for the unsuccessful ones. For instance, great benefits have been stripped from the midlands—where my constituency lies —and I am not sure who has gained any advantage from that.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one thing to strip successful areas to help the unsuccessful, and another to strip areas that are only moderately successful to help, in some cases, the successful rather than the unsuccessful?

Mr. Spicer: That, too, is a good point. As was pointed out earlier, it must be asked whether Britain and Germany —which will be the paymasters of the enormously expanding Maastricht budget—are the countries that should be paying all that money.
Sadly, Britain's income per head is rather low in terms of the European Community countries. Even if I represented a German constituency, I would at least ask whether Germany would be able to afford such amounts in a few years, given its current recession and all the other problems that are hitting it—for instance, social welfare programmes that it cannot really pay for. However, that is not my problem; my problem is in Britain.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that even Germany has not done too badly out of Maastricht and the Edinburgh declaration. I understand that the whole of Germany is now to be an objective 1 area, whereas not one part of Britain is to be such an area. Although Germany makes the largest contribution, at least it will be given back a huge chunk. We shall not even receive money under the objective 1 criteria.

Mr. Spicer: Indeed, as a result of all the mechanical problems and the Edinburgh agreement that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, it is possible that Britain—which has been the number two paymaster for the past 10 years—will end up being the number one paymaster in relation to a vastly increasing budget.
What, then, are the benefits for Britain? The Common Market was founded on the concept of trade, and I certainly support the continuation of close European trade links. Britain pays £2 billion a year into the budget; moreover, the year before last she bought £10 billion more than she sold, and will probably do so next year. Even in the matter of trade, on which most of us agree, there is a questionable return on all the money that we spend on a vastly increasing budget that will explode following the Maastricht treaty.
Will we gain anything from the single currency, if we decide at some point to opt into it?

Sir Teddy Taylor: It will make things worse.

Mr. Spicer: It may do so, for a very good reason. We saw the effect of fixed and managed exchange rates under the exchange rate mechanism. Some people say that the fact that we were right about the ERM does not necessarily mean that we are right about the Maastricht treaty; I have had that thrown at me at certain meetings, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has had the same experience. The obvious answer is that the issue is the same one. The single currency is the ERM perpetuated. If it was wrong to link our economy to the economies of others in the short term, as it was wrong under the gold standard to link our economy with that of the Americans in the 1920s and 1930s, on the basis of costs and benefits it must be wrong to link ourselves in perpetuity with the economies of others.
7.30 pm
What will happen to our democratic constitution? Will there be some great pay-off? I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will take up the fraud argument when he responds. He will say that there will be a new pay-off in terms of accountability and the institutions that will be created as a result of the treaty of Maastricht to deal with fraud. I see, Mr. Lofthouse, that you are becoming somewhat restless. I assure you that there is a direct relationship between fraud and money. This is one of the few debates that have allowed us to focus on costs, and it would seem reasonable to focus on costs


and benefits. After all, the costs may be beneficial; there may be good reasons for spending so much money. I am trying to ascertain whether there are good reasons for doing so.
The Government say that one of the benefits is a new approach to the institutions of Europe along with a new approach to the accountability and auditing procedures when adjudicating whether moneys have been spent correctly or incorrectly. I merely question that. I cannot conceive how an unelected, secret sitting, central bank, along with an unelected law court and an unelected Commission, can in combination, using an alien system of law to that of the United Kingdom, improve upon the way in which moneys are dispensed. Such an approach will not enable me as a Member to feel that I can tell my constituents that moneys are being properly controlled and that there is proper accountability.

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reports about the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development that have broken so opportunely recently—they focus on the money that the bank has been spending and the sizeable balance between the amount spent on the marble in its halls and on its offices, structures, jets, flights and visits as opposed to the moneys that it was meant to be lending to the eastern bloc —provide a good example of what happens and of what is endemic within the thinking of administrators within the EEC? It would seem that they take the view that it is not their money that is being spent and they do not care where it goes. The reports provide a good example of an endemic carelessness.

Mr. Spicer: When an institution, whether it is the Italian Government, the Commission, the European Court or the central bank, is not directly accountable to the public, who can throw it out of office, corruption in various forms almost automatically follows. That is not surprising. Indeed, in my view, it is inevitable. The British form of democracy, which we are in danger of dismantling under the treaty of Maastricht, has much going for it. At the very least, it provides a process by which Governments can be held accountable. If the process is taken to the ultimate, they can be thrown out of office if the people do not like the way that they perform. Governments realise that, as do the officials who work for them. Therefore, the system is open. It is one in which change can take place. If there is a change of Government, the newly elected administration can examine the books. That can happen only if there is genuine democracy, which we cannot see even emerging within the institutions of Europe.
The issue is central and crucial to the arguments that reflect the worry about the proposed development within the context of the treaty of Maastricht. Some say that everything is in place already under previous legislation, including the treaty of Rome. They say that we are talking only about continuation. In fact, the treaty of Maastricht amounts to a fundamental break. It pushes everything into an entirely different orbit because of the single currency and what will flow from it in terms of the resources that will be required to manage the consequences.
There can be only one possible justification for the enormous commitment that Britain will undoubtedly make—British taxpayers—in handing over possibly the majority of our money to, possibly, a single taxing authority, a central economic authority, within the EEC.

That justification can be found only if we believe in a federal state of Europe. If we believe in a nation of Europe, everything fits into place. If we do not, we should not vote for the treaty of Maastricht.
Earlier there was some banter on the Front Bench about Euro fanatics. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East came to the rescue when he said that they were not fanatics because they did not really believe in what is proposed. He may have something in that. Indeed, we are presented with the treaty on the basis that, to some extent, we have opted out of it. No one produces firm reasons why we should have the treaty. Instead, we are told that we have opted out of certain parts of it and that the Government have done their best to ensure that we do not experience the worst effects.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the majority of those within the Conservative party and in our constituencies—this is certainly the position in the country generally—do not like the treaty. Some think that it is the best that can be done or the best that we can get. No one, with the exception of one or two of my hon. Friends, says that we want a federal state or a united states of Europe. At the same time, no one who argues against our case is able to show us how a single currency, with the legal system that will pile in behind it along with the money that is pouring in as a result of what has been shown to be an inexorable budgetary process, will not lead to a federal state of Europe. It is clear that there is schizophrenia.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who have been voting through all this stuff will not be able to say in future, "We did not understand what was going on." It was reported in The Times yesterday that some had stated that they realised with hindsight that they had got it wrong. The logic has been spelt out during the many days that we have considered the Bill in Committee. It has been presented to the Committee day after day and night after night. No one can misunderstand now the meaning of the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has done the Committee a great service in showing logically just how inexorable the process of—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend say to the Minister and to all those in the Treasury that if there is any doubt about the activities of that terrible bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, they should turn to page 91 of the treaty to read about the new banks that will be set up under the Maastricht treaty, which will cost more in own resources? If my right hon. Friend the Minister reads article 7, he will find that he will not be allowed to write them a letter or to phone them if he is worried about their expenditure. If he is worried about the spending of money, perhaps my hon. Friend will tell him to turn to page 91 and to ask himself what he could do when faced with the scandals over spending that will come inevitably with the new European banks, which are part of the EEC.

Mr. Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and for having generally raised the issue earlier. I hope that we shall receive some good answers from our admirable and competent right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

Sir John Cope: It might be helpful to the Committee if I begin by describing—it has not emerged so far—what article 201 does and the effect of the Maastricht treaty in


replacing old article 201 with new article 201. The article relates to the system of setting the ceiling for the European Community's expenditure. It is in part a tidying-up change, and desirable as such. The Community should recognise how events have moved on since the previous treaties were agreed. It removes some out-of-date references to the old system of financing the Community by levies on member states.
Most important, it embeds in the treaty the basis of the hard-won 1985 agreement, that the Community should be financed solely by the so-called own resources. I accept the criticism of the phrase, but it has occurred in treaties for a very long time. In so doing, the new article 201 reinforces the 1985 agreement and the decisions that have been made under it, but it also repeats that the system of own resources and the ceiling to be applied shall be recommended first by the Commission and then by the Council of Ministers—the representatives of the member states—by unanimity, through the European Parliament to the member states themselves for their own constitutional processes. In our case, that means an Act of Parliament.
Any proposal to increase the ceiling on own resources requires an Act of Parliament. The Bill is not such a proposal. It does not arise from Maastricht, but the House in general will be aware that, since the treaty was agreed, there has been a meeting at Edinburgh at which it was agreed to propose increases in the future in the own resources ceiling. Such a proposal will need to come before the House as a Bill, and it will do so in due course, but it is not part of this Bill or the article or anything to do with the treaty.
I believe that such a method of controlling the ceiling of Community finances is the correct one. It was obtained by Baroness Thatcher in the negotiations that led to the 1985 decision. It was built on by her in 1988, and is now built in to the treaty by the clause. My hon. Friends who are critical of spending should at least recognise that that is in itself desirable. given the parameters within which we have to live. It is the right method to ensure accountability.
The system for setting the ceiling on European Community expenditure should be as it is: it should be a decision for member states in their own national Parliaments or through whatever constitutional process they have. In our case, it involves a Bill coming before the House. When such a Bill comes before the House is the time to decide whether there should be a new ceiling on own resources.
The article strengthens the financial discipline and control over the Community's financing. Those who want budgetary discipline should therefore support the article and the changes it makes to article 201. I do not pretend that it is doing anything other than reinforcing the controls that exist, but it makes them stronger, because they are now to be embedded in the treaty.
Hon. Members who have participated in the debate have not dealt with the effect of the article, but have made more general remarks about own resources and the financing of the Community. Of course, all expenditure must be treaty-based but, in addition, it must come through the European Community budget. The amendment deals with the raising of money. When we have discussed the spending of money, we have discussed the system for the budget, and do so frequently when changes to the Community's budget are proposed. The system is elaborate. It involves the House but is primarily a

European set of procedures involving some of the institutions about which we have heard such as the budgetary control council, which a former member mentioned in an intervention. It is an important committee, roughly equivalent to the Public Accounts Committee.
The third control element is the own resources, the 1·2 per cent., about which I have already spoken and which is a key to the overall control of Community spending.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Paymaster General confirm the thesis that I suggested in my contribution, and which I shall spell out again? The EC budget is not to be compared with our Budget, which covers the raising of revenue but raised by agreements usually running for five years. In addition, they have estimates for spending. Is not the EC budget therefore the equivalent of our estimates and the Appropriation Act put together, and do they not do a different job? Does he agree that whoever authorises the budget automatically authorises the expenditure?

Sir John Cope: I can accept in general terms the hon. Gentleman's description. In a European Community context, the word "budget" is used primarily for expenditure. We use the word primarily to refer to the Chancellor's Budget statement, which is mainly about taxation and the raising of money. We are in the process of altering that. We shall have a unified budget in the next financial cycle and shall, in a sense, be putting the two halves together, which is the right thing to do. However, that is not directly related to the debate. In the European Community, the word "budget" is primarily about expenditure. That is the way it is usually used.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not also true that a budget appropriation in no way inhibits the Community's introduction of supplementary budgets, which can wholly change the original examination of figures and which, except in retrospect, do not require a close examination even by the European Parliament?

Sir John Cope: Oh yes, they of course require examination. Supplementary budgets can be introduced, but, as hon. Members will be aware, so can supplementary appropriations. In any spending or budgetary system, one needs a method by which one can adjust expenditure in the course of a year if circumstances change.
Many references have been made to fraud. They began with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who moved the amendment. In this debate, as in others, my hon. Friend's attitude has been that nothing can be done and that the apparatus and methods to control money and spending in the European Community cannot be improved; the only thing we can do is to spend nothing through the European Community. If my hon. Friend will forgive the phrase, I call that the view of a fanatic of the way to control the EC budget: if it has no budget, there is no problem, and we do not need to control it.
It is a defeatist view. We should not give up the attempt to improve controls on the Community budget. I do not believe that they are as bad as they are sometimes painted, but improvements are desirable and necessary. A considerable amount has been done this year, and, over the past 12 months in which I have had responsibility for


that aspect, I have obviously paid close attention to the matter, and am glad to report some improvements to the system.

Sir Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend used the words "fanatic" and "defeatist". I suggest that, on the contrary, my hon. Friend's amendment is essentially constructive, as was the manner in which he moved it. In future, the Community must look to a new way of financing its activities, particularly as it faces spectacular enlargement in the years ahead. Can my right hon. Friend name any other world institution that has own resources, yet somehow does not survive because it lacks own resources? Far from being destructive, my hon. Friend is simply suggesting a different way whereby the Community can be funded, directly by this Parliament, rather than have resources of its own.
That arrangement would provide the Treasury and the House with a real means of controlling Community expenditure, where we deem that appropriate, and of preventing fraud. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will, on reflection, withdraw the rather extreme adjectives that he used and will understand that behind my hon. Friend's amendment is a constructive and sensible approach to the Community's future financing.

Sir John Cope: I used an adjective that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East applied to me and to others who support the Maastricht treaty.

Sir Roger Moate: Quite right.

Sir John Cope: Every right hon. and hon. Member must decide that for himself—that is not for me to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East made kind references to me also, and was flattering, but he said that those who support the Maastricht treaty are taking a fanatical view and are fanatics—and they include me, because I support the treaty, with particular regard to its effect on Community finances.
From the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), I may have misunderstood my hon. Friend's proposals for the Community budget. I understood that he wanted to take from the Community all own resources, and he suggested no other method by which it should be financed. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had in mind—as I took it to be—that there should be no other method of financing the Community. That is why I assume that he wanted to take all resources from the Community, as a means of cutting back its activities severely.
I do not believe that it is necessary to take away all the Community's resources to control them properly. On the contrary, we have taken some important steps forward, including those in the treaty that make member states pursue fraud against the Community's budget with the same vigour as fraud against national budgets.
The treaty also improves consideration of the Commission's annual report on fraud. It makes the Court of Auditors a Community institution and gives it the right to pursue its views, which have been insufficiently pursued in the past, in the courts.

Mr. Gill: What my right hon. Friend has just said is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence that the Court of

Auditors report has brought any improvement. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box each year and say, "We will do this, that, and the next thing," but nothing happens.
I am sorry to take my right hon. Friend into the realm of practicalities, but for years Ministers have been telling us that beef intervention will be brought under control. We have 10 times more beef in intervention stores than we had four years ago, despite the fact that cattle prices in livestock markets are higher than ever before. One would have thought that would trigger the emptying of the stores, to present the public with a commodity at a keener price. It is nonsense for my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to expect the Committee to believe this rubbish.

Sir John Cope: I was explaining that the Maastricht treaty increases the power of the Court of Auditors to follow up exactly the kind of issues that my hon. Friend cited and that the Court of Auditors mentioned in its reports of previous years. I support the argument that the Court of Auditors should be strengthened in that regard, and I strongly support the treaty because it will do that.

Mr. Cash: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when Mr. George Carey, who was for a long time the chairman of the Court of Auditors, resigned, he wrote a letter which some of us have seen, and which I dare say my right hon. Friend the Minister has seen too. It is strongly at variance with my right hon. Friend's assessment of the value of the treaty's minimal provisions relating to control over expenditure and fraud. If Mr. Carey expresses such views, it is immensely difficult to understand why my right hon. Friend—who I believe is an accountant of some standing—could possibly reach a different conclusion from Mr. Carey.

Sir John Cope: He was not the chairman, but a member of the Court of Auditors. From my hon. Friend's description, I believe that he must have seen a different letter from that which I saw. Nevertheless, I recall certain comments made by Mr. Carey at the time of his resignation, and have discussed them. My hon. Friend's description of the reasons for Mr. Carey's resignation does not conform with my recollection of his remarks. The Court of Auditors will be strengthened by the treaty, which will strengthen the fight against Community fraud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to recent newspaper articles about carbon/energy tax and suggested that Community proposals might have something to do with a further resource for the Community. That is not so. It is not proposed to introduce any new own resources as a result of either the Maastricht treaty or Edinburgh agreements. In any case, the funding arrangements could be changed only by the Council acting or making recommendations by unanimity. Any such arrangements would need to be approved by the House.
Discussions are under way on a carbon/energy tax, but it is not suggested that that should be part of the Community's own resources, as those who have read the explanatory memorandum on that aspect will know.

Mr. Leighton: How does the Paymaster General justify the bizarre set of taxes that finance the own resources, wherby we pay literally billions and richer countries pay nothing at all?

Sir John Cope: I will return to that point later.
I was explaining that the carbon/energy tax proposals have been described in an explanatory memorandum, and I do not want to add much to that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is it not true that the Edinburgh Council asked the Commission to produce a report for member states on a new fifth resource? I am astonished at the way that the Minister has replied to the debate. I have always had the highest regard for his objectivity. Surely the Edinburgh Council asked the Commission to do this job for it.

Sir John Cope: Yes, but that is not connected with the carbon/energy tax proposals that are flying about and being discussed. They have nothing to do with the own resources of the Community. The preliminary draft for a carbon/energy tax is being discussed by the Community, but those proposals will not affect the own resources of the Community, which is what article 201 and the amendment deal with.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) described Germany and the United Kingdom as the only net contributors. If he looks at the last Court of Auditors' report, he will see that there were five net contributors to the European Community in the last full year upon which the Court of Auditors reported, 1991. They included not only Germany and the United Kingdom but France, Italy and the Netherlands.
Belgium and Luxembourg were also referred to in the debate—certainly Belgium was mentioned. Belgium benefits considerably from administrative expenditure, which affects its net balance with the Community.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, over the past 10 years, Britain and Germany have been the only large contributors to this fund?

Sir John Cope: Yes, I certainly accept that, although Germany's contribution is much larger than ours. Nevertheless, I draw the Committee's attention to the very important fact that other countries have recently become net contributors to the Community. We shall discuss later the changes in own resources that were proposed at Edinburgh, but they form no part of this Bill. They will be a matter for future legislation. The change in the balance, in particular the change in the number of net contributors within the Community, will make a considerable difference over the years and will have a dynamic effect, to borrow a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, on the financing of the Community.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read Sir Michael Franklin's report for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in which he looks at distributive flows and redistributive elements? When they are broken down to show what each citizen of the new union will receive through his or her national identity, one sees that it amounts to 1,987 ecu per head for those in Luxembourg, whereas Germany contributes, per head of the population, 140 ecu. In 1992, we were, on a per capita basis, the second largest contributor. It is extraordinary that, on that basis, Italy is still the recipient of 10 ecu per head, and Spain 73 ecu, Denmark 97 ecu, Portugal 104 ecu, Belgium 165 ecu, Greece 375 ecu and Ireland 678 ecu per head. That is an insane way of

financing or redistributing the wealth of the Community, because it bears no relationship to gross domestic product per head.

Sir John Cope: I have not had the opportunity to look at the report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall do so. I cannot comment on the figures, but the general points that I made about net contributions are, I believe, correct and important ones for the future financing of the Community.

Mr. Leighton: The right hon. Gentleman says that there are five net contributors to the Community. There is therefore a minority of contributors, and the majority of states pay absolutely nothing at all. That is grotesque. How does the Paymaster General justify that? It is not fair, is it? Ought not contributions to be on the basis of ability to pay, instead of this mad system that we have at the moment?

Sir John Cope: It is not a question of not paying anything at all. It is a question of how the contributions to the Community and the receipts from the Community net out. All the member states contribute to the Community according to the formulae. All the member states, including ourselves, benefit. Member states receive money from the Community. Furthermore, individuals, and individual companies within the member states, receive money from the Community. The question is, what is the net effect of these two processes—the raising and the paying out of money? It is the net effect to which I refer. The net public sector flows amount to about £2 billion a year, although the amount varies from year to year.

Mr. Michael Spicer: How can my right hon. Friend use the word "benefit"? If we get back only a bit of what we give, that is not a benefit; it is a disbenefit. We have given away money in the process. It is the net figure, surely, that really matters.

Sir John Cope: It is the net effect that matters, and that is exactly what I have been emphasising. The net effect is caused by both negative and positive flows.
Some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are concerned about the cohesion fund, and about whether the Community is somehow jumping the gun, in legal terms. I hope that I can reassure them, primarily by referring them to the detailed explanatory memorandum that was submitted to the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 5 March regarding proposals for the Council regulation. There is no legal jumping of the gun regarding the cohesion fund.
Several hon. Members have referred during the debate to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and to the recent criticism levelled at it in the newspapers. Both I and others have pointed out during the debate on the issue that the EBRD is not a European Community institution. It is an institution to which 57 countries belong. That includes the Community countries, but many other non-Community countries are represented on the board of management, are shareholders and are part of it.
There are no accountability lessons to be learnt from the EBRD that are directly relevant to the Community, which has much more elaborate institutions for controlling its finances than the EBRD does. Incidentally, the EBRD's accountability is similar to that for other institutional organisations, such as the World bank. It is that


machinery which will no doubt inquire into recent press reports. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and departmental officials are playing a part in the investigation. That matter is not, however, germane to this debate.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is relevant, is it not, that the Court of Auditors has produced loads of reports on the misuse of European Community funds? Our Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to get these reports debated properly and action taken, whereas other European Community countries have been singularly unhelpful in trying to get any action whatsoever taken. If my right hon. Friend is in favour of additional resources for the European Community, he must surely accept that its present resources need to be spent properly first.

Sir John Cope: I have talked about the Court of Auditors, and I do not propose to add to what I have said. We were talking about the EBRD, which is a wholly different institution with 57 member countries. It is a different scale of institution.

Sir Roger Moate: We fully understand that the EBRD is not a Community institution. However, it is comparable to a range of other EC institutions. Can my right hon. Friend explain to me and to the British public why Community officials and EBRD officials pay no income tax? Will he explain again for my benefit why they should be accorded that extraordinary privilege? If there is any argument for it, could it not be re-examined, because it is rather scandalous?

Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend must take up that matter on another occasion, because it does not arise out of this debate. The EBRD is comparable to the World bank and to other such organisations, and the matter also relates to other diplomatic privileges.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intends to go back to the subject of the cohesion fund. He talked about not jumping the gun. He must be aware that, at the Edinburgh summit, for example, the European Community promised Mr. Gonzalez, the Prime Minister of Spain, £7 billion out of the proposed cohesion fund towards a hydrolytic scheme. He was guaranteed the money, out of the £17 billion which he hopes to garner eventually from the European fund, to flood the other half of Spain so that the people can grow even more olives and useless things, which we shall no doubt put into storage. That commitment was given to him in exchange for his co-operation over the issue of the Danish opt-out. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether that is a commitment, whether it jumps the gun or not?

Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend has confused a number of different strands. I referred her and other of my hon. Friends to the explanatory memorandum which was issued on 5 March. It explains in some detail what is going on in terms of the cohesion fund. That point is not relevant to the amendment or to the treaty. What is relevant is article 201, which strengthens the disciplines of the Community by restating and improving the controls, especially over the ceiling of own resources. The total of own resources is a matter to which we shall have to return

on another occasion when debating different legislation. I believe, therefore, that we should not agree to the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The Paymaster General was a little unkind and ungenerous to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), whom he accused of being a fanatic. The hon. Member for Southend, East may choose to take that as a compliment. He has been generous in this Committee in praising the sincerity of others. A fairer description would be to say that he was very, very sincere in what he was saying about the shortcomings of article 201 and about the system of own resources.

Sir John Cope: I was trying to say that the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in this matter, as I understood it, was extreme. He used the word "fanatic" about some who, like myself, support the Maastricht treaty. That is a matter for him to describe. I entirely accept his sincerity, which is unquestioned. I also pay tribute to his assiduity not only during our debates on this treaty, but over many years, in pursuing his particular point of view on the European Community.

Mr. Smith: The Paymaster General's search for acceptable, euphemistic synonyms for fanaticism is intriguing. I think that he is just digging the hole a bit deeper. The hon. Member for Southend, East did well considering that he had such a bad cold. I merely shudder to think how much longer he would have spoken if he had not had that cold. However, I wish him a speedy recovery.
The hon. Gentleman argued that supporting the amendment could bring together various groups in the Committee. I am aware of his sincerity, which we have all just praised. However, I must say that a greater triumph of hope over experience would be difficult to imagine. He was on stronger ground when he appeared to suggest that we might cut cash out of the European Community debate. Even that argument collapsed when people realised that he was talking not about his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), but merely about money.
In all seriousness, the hon. Member for Southend, East has overestimated the effect of the amendment. I understood him to claim that it would remove every word of the treaty relating to EC finance. He is clearly overlooking articles 199 and 201a, as well as many other articles in the treaty. The amendment would not have that effect. Many of the points that the hon. Gentleman made —this was also true of the points made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)—were really a repetition of a number of points made at length in our previous debates, especially those on the Court of Auditors.
Nobody has more strongly condemned irregularities, fraud and corruption in the EC than the Labour party has or than I have at the Dispatch Box. However, the question that we must ask is whether the provisions in relation to the Court of Auditors and the control of expenditure make matters better or worse. There are a number of respects in which the Maastricht treaty makes the situation better; they are set out in articles 206, 290 and 290a, which give stronger powers to the Court of Auditors. At least now the accounts will have to be fully certified by the Court of Auditors which was not the case before. There are extra


powers for the European Parliament to require the Commission to act on the reports and recommendations from the Court of Auditors. There is also the new legal duty, to which the Paymaster General referred, obliging member states to pursue fraud in relation to EC funds with the vigour that they pursue fraud within their own countries.
It is difficult to see how agreeing to the amendment would advance the arguments so sincerely expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East. Article 201 states:
Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should riot be financed wholly from own resources, but from some further contributions outside the own resources ceiling? I think not. The article also says:
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of own resources in the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional arrangements.
Does the amendment imply that the Council should not act unanimously in the matter, that the European Parliament should not be consulted, that the recommendation should not be made to the member states, or that adoption should not proceed in accordance with their respective constitutional arrangements? I think not. Does the amendment imply simply that there should not be a system of own resources? That is what the hon. Member for Southend, East and those who took a similar position argued for. I find it difficult to see how that argument or any of the other implications could be in the interests of the United Kingdom or of the Community as a whole. The effect of the amendment, as well as presumably scuppering the treaty and its ratification, would be to leave us with article 201 of the treaty of Rome under which the present budgetary practices have developed. Even in terms of the hon. Gentleman's own argument, the amendment could not represent a step forward.
I argue that if closer European co-operation and integration are to proceed—there are many deep and honest difficulties in the Committee on that matter—there must be a system of financing those functions. That system can be discharged effectively only at the Community level. If there is to be stability in the management of the Community's finances, a set of rules for sources and levels of finance seems to me to be essential.
We serve our electorates better if, rather than arguing the somewhat theological point about the extent to which so-called own resources are in fact the Community's own resources, we focus on the question of how well the system serves the Community's common purposes and how far the distribution of the financial costs and benefits of the Community are compatible with principles of economic efficiency and of fairness and social justice.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great care. I take it that the underlying thought behind his remarks is that he accepts the principle that there will be a growing curve of commitment and a growing movement of money towards the own resources system. Is that the position that those on the Front Bench are arguing?

Mr. Smith: I am accepting that, if the Community is properly to discharge its common functions, it must be adequately financed for that purpose. I do not accept any implications as regards a unitary superstate, which is a

concept that those on the Labour Front Bench do not endorse. The purpose of the European Community encompasses certain common functions and we need a common system of financing so that those functions can be properly fulfilled.
In one sense, of course, the Community does not have any own resources—any more than the Government do —and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made that point. The income that it derives either comes from EC citizens or is acquired on behalf of the citizens of the EC, just as its expenditure is undertaken in their name. What should really be at issue in the use of the term "own resources" is the degree to which certain sources of revenue are earmarked for the EC budget within prescribed limits, in the sense that member states have each agreed to take on the obligation to pass certain revenues on to the Community.

Mr. Gill: I appreciate that such a course of action is entirely consistent with the hon. Gentleman's socialist principles. Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me a little more than my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General was able to enlighten me. What would the hon. Gentleman say to his constituents and what does he suggest I say to mine when they discover that British taxpayers' money will be used, through the cohesion fund, to provide roads and railways in Greece, Portugal, Spain, and southern Ireland, given that many of those constituents see a grave need for those facilities in this country? A case in point is the west coast line from Euston to Glasgow, which has about six more years' life in it and will soon be in need of reinvestment of capital running into thousands of millions of pounds. What are we to tell our constituents when the west coast line breaks down and the money that we might have spent on its renewal has been spent on the four beneficiaries of the cohesion fund?

Mr. Smith: First, I shall tell my constituents—as I do —that Rover, which is already selling a lot of cars to Spain, will be selling even more when investment in that country has succeeded in improving its standard of living and bringing it closer to the average for the Community. Secondly, I shall say that we all benefit in common from the advances that common European Community action can effect. Thirdly, I shall tell my constituents that other sources of Community expenditure benefit many parts of this country and indirectly benefit all its citizens. In previous debates, a number of hon. Members representing some of the most depressed areas of the United Kingdom have made precisely that point. Where the Government have not been prepared to act, we have been able to obtain a measure of assistance through European Community funds.

Mrs. Gorman: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way, but can we talk common sense? Is he really saying that his constituents will sleep better in their beds at night if they know that people in Spain can drive about on nice new roads in Rover cars, on nice new roads which people in his constituency would love to have but cannot afford because they are having to fund such improvements in other countries? Good sensible people in my constituency of Billericay have a word for that, but it is not one that a lady can use in this place.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady suggests that we talk common sense. Of course, many of my constituents drive


Rover cars, and the more such cars are exported to Spain and other countries, the more happily they will sleep in their beds because they will know that their jobs are that much more secure. I hold the conviction that the citizens of all of Europe will be better off to the extent that we co-operate more closely in safeguarding our common economic welfare and security. That is the common sense that lies behind the common purpose of the Community.
Let me return to the question of own resources. I was arguing that the term relates to the extent to which the Community can automatically count on certain funding. As long as there is an overall limit on own resources—and the existence of that limit has not loomed large in the debate, although it is material to the way in which own resources would work in practice—and as long as there is a requirement of unanimity, as there is in article 201, the use of the term cannot imply any right of the Community to set its own tax levels or even to establish its own tax base in the true sense of the term.
On the rather more important questions of fairness and economic efficiency, the details of the own resources system have an impact on the distribution of member states' contributions to the EC budget, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) rightly drew attention. In relation to, for example, the VAT base element of own resources, those member states with a relatively high VAT base as a proportion of GNP—they include Britain—will be making larger contributions than members with a lower VAT base relative to GNP.
I argue that, because of that, and because the notional VAT base serves no proper and effective economic purpose in the assessment of EC contributions, the capping of the VAT base in 1988 and the Edinburgh decision to reduce it further with effect from 1995, and, indeed, the reduction of the ceiling on the rate of VAT from 1·4 per cent. to 1 per cent. on a notional basket of goods and services, which is taken as the basis for drawing down VAT for EC contributions, are broadly to be welcomed. Hand in hand with that goes the decision to increase the share of Community revenue contributions calculated on the basis of gross national product—the so-called fourth resource, which will be contributing 40 per cent. of revenue by the end of the century. I had expected the Paymaster General to point to that in answer to criticisms from both Conservative and Opposition Members. There has been a shift towards a wealth-related system of contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East and others would point out, that has not gone far enough: the relationship between net contribution and wealth is still not nearly strong enough. The Labour party is concerned to ensure that there is a much fairer correspondence between net contributions to the Community and the wealth of member states.
The Financial Times article of 13 February 1992, quoted in the Library briefing, estimated that, even after the United Kingdom rebate, in 1992, the United Kingdom would be the second largest net contributor after Germany even though we rank down at eighth in terms of GNP per head. Another way of looking at it is that our post-rebate net contributions to the EC budget in 1992 will run at something like 0·34 per cent. of GNP as compared with 0·62 per cent. in Germany, but only 0·15 per cent. in

France and 0·04 per cent. in the Netherlands, while the rest of the member states, some of which are significantly richer than us, will be net recipients. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, the Financial Times said that it is a scandal that the two countries with the highest average incomes in the Community—Denmark and Luxembourg —should be net beneficiaries. That is absolutely right.
The system must be changed and that will require more significant reforms in the EC budget, upon which we have already touched in earlier debates; most notably it will require further reform of the CAP.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is being remarkably helpful to the Committee. With no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, he is providing more information which is helpful to the Committee as it reaches a decision on the matter than anything that I heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister.
As the hon. Gentleman has been extremely informative and interesting, will he speculate with the Committee as to why the inequities and injustices in the present system have not already been attended to, bearing in mind that they are so obvious to all? Why are we not debating that rather than the nonsense of this obsolete and useless Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Smith: I support the case for more debate in the House about how we can achieve a more equitable system of contributions and receipts from the EC budget. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is not satisfied with the answers from his right hon. and hon. Friends and he is better educated by contributions from the Opposition Benches, that is all to the good.
Changing the system in respect of the EC budget which the hon. Member for Macclesfield and many other hon. Members find so objectionable will require political will and more determination. He asked why there had not been more change given that the inequities are so obvious. However, I dare say that they are not quite so obvious to the majority of member states that are net beneficiaries under the system. Therein lies the problem.
We must continue to argue for sensible reform. The Labour party will do that and will continue to question the sums being spent on the Community's agricultural policy, which lies at the heart of so many of the problems.

Mr. Leighton: What would my hon. Friend say about the other two taxes involved in own resources—the levy on food imports and the tax on industrial imports? They are both very damaging for this country. They are a way of fining and penalising this country for trading with the rest of the world.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important matter. While I was able to point to the fact that the GNP-based contribution as a share of the Community budget would be increased to 40 per cent. and that the VAT-based contribution would be reduced, the traditional own resources contribution based on agricultural levies and levies on non-agricultural imports stay at 25 per cent. under the projections based on Edinburgh and the previous European Council meeting.
The case for the benefits to be derived from trade that can take place more freely without such a scale of additional levies and duties, particularly freer trade with


central and eastern European countries, the countries of the former Soviet Union and third world countries, is something which all hon. Members should consider. There is real mutual benefit in ensuring that the Community collectively becomes more of an engine for concerted world growth, including growth in general trade, which must be part of any real worldwide recovery, and not simply a fortress Europe that closes its doors to such opportunities.

Mr. Cash: I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the reform of the CAP and the opportunity for eastern European countries and other developing countries such as Antigua—from which I have just returned and where I played cricket—and other parts of the Caribbean which have serious problems in respect of entry for their goods.
Would not the hon. Gentleman's argument be a little more convincing if he accepted that it was the failure to renegotiate such matters, as with the single market, in advance of Maastricht which was a reason for not supporting the treaty? Irrespective of the blemishes and flaws in the treaty and its contradictions, the very failure to solve or attempt to solve the problems which the hon. Gentleman is addressing, such as the CAP, is a terrible blight and indictment of the negotiating that took place in advance of the signing of the treaty.

Mr. Smith: I agree that it would have been better if a more persuasive case had been put and more progress had been made in advance of signing the treaty. It is not true to say that no progress has been made. There has been some limited reform of the CAP, but the basic difference between us is how far we see Maastricht as a framework to secure further improvement or how far we see it as an impediment. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) sees it as an impediment while I see it as a framework.
The Opposition will be keeping a close eye on the commitment on overall agricultural spending. While the Community budget agreed in Edinburgh shows agriculture taking a decreasing share of the total EC budget, in absolute terms it shows agriculture spending increasing from 35·2 billion ecu to 38·.4 billion ecu in 1999. We believe that the escalating costs of the CAP must be reversed and expenditure switched to investment in regional, industrial and training policies to improve the economic competitiveness and prosperity of the Community, including more expenditure within the United Kingdom, for example, from the regional and social funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the role of the European Investment Bank. It is important that we underline the difference between the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to which many comments have rightly been addressed.
I wish that the Paymaster General had said rather more firmly about the EBRD, not just that there were matters which the Government would have' to consider, but that the United Kingdom Government as shareholders in the EBRD—and, for that matter, the European Commission, as it is also a shareholder—would absolutely condemn the scandalous waste of money involved in setting up that institution. I hope that it is the firm intention to ensure that those resources are in future invested in developing central and eastern European countries and not in enriching the

surroundings and standards of Christmas entertainment at the EBRD. I hope that the Committee would speak with one voice in that respect.
The European Investment Bank is a different institution. To the best of my knowledge, it does not, thankfully, have anything like the reputation for extravagance of the EBRD. On the contrary, it has been involved in many worth while projects. When the need for European co-operation to secure recovery and investment in infrastructure and to tackle unemployment has never been greater, the European Investment Bank and the purposes that it can properly serve within its defined role is an invaluable instrument for European recovery which should be used more rather than less.
Unlike Conservative Members, the Opposition recognise the importance of policies at the European level, as well as at national, regional and local levels, for economic and social cohesion so that jobs can be generated and areas that have been shattered by industrial decline can be rebuilt. It is vital that the funds available are used effectively to achieve those aims and that the scope for investment in the United Kingdom is not undermined in the future as it has been in the past by the squabbles about additionality and the Government's reluctance to provide matching expenditure for European Community funds.
The issues and other matters which I have covered can in no sense be addressed by amendment No. 57. For the reasons that I set out earlier, the Committee cannot support the amendment. It would take the Community backwards, not forwards. Therefore, while I share many of the apprehensions which have been expressed about the way in which some parts of the Community's budget are mis-spent, and the irregularities and fraud which must be condemned outright, and which more vigorous action must be taken to stop altogether, I believe that the European Community needs a system of own resources so that it can properly discharge those functions for our common welfare which can be discharged only in common across the European Community.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 301, Noes 281.

Division No. 232]
[at 8.40pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Alton, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl' thorpes)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, David (Bour' mouth E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bates, Michael
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Booth, Hartley
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey






Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For' st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D' by' ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnston, Sir Russell


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Elletson, Harold
Key, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Faber, David
Knox, David


Fabricant, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Freeman, Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclean, David


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Milligan, Stephen


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hendry, Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)





Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steve
Stephen, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stern, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan


Ottaway, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Sykes, John


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickles, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thomason, Roy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C' er V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trend, Michael


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Robathan, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, Raymond (Ab' d'n S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wallace, James


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whittingdale, John


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyce, Jimmy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Boyes, Roland


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov' try NE)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Budgen, Nicholas


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros' dale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Butcher, John


Ashton, Joe
Byers, Stephen


Austin-Walker, John
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C' bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bayley, Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Beggs, Roy
Carttiss, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Cash, William


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Betts, Clive
Clelland. David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blair, Tony
Coffey, Ann


Blunkett, David
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Body, Sir Richard
Cook, Robin (Livingston)






Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cran, James
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Jessel, Toby


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Knapman, Roger


Dewar, Donald
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Lord, Michael


Enright, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McKelvey, William


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McMaster, Gordon


Fraser, John
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martlew, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Maxton, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Meacher, Michael


Godsiff, Roger
Meale, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michael, Alun


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Graham, Thomas
Milburn, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Hawksley, Warren
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John





Primarolo, Dawn
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Stott, Roger


Quin, Ms Joyce
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Sweeney, Walter


Raynsford, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Trimble, David


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watson, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Simpson, Alan
Winnick, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Speliar, John
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly to.

Question pit accordingly, That the amendment be made: —

The committee divided: Ayes 64, Noes 298.

Division No. 233]
[8.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livingstone, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
Madden, Max


Beggs, Roy
Maginnis, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Alice


Bennett, Andrew F.
Marlow, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Body, Sir Richard
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Boyce, Jimmy
Moate, Sir Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Butcher, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Redmond, Martin


Canavan, Dennis
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Cann, Jamie
Rowlands, Ted


Carttiss, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Cash, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Simpson, Alan


Cran, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Spearing, Nigel


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gardiner, Sir George
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Gill, Christopher
Trimble, David


Godsiff, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Harvey, Nick
Winnick, David


Hawksley, Warren
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)


Jessel, Toby
Wise, Audrey


Knapman, Roger



Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Michael Lord.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alexander, Richard






Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Faber, David


Alton, David
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Booth, Hartley
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia 
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mtn)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Fk Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Kirkwood, Archy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman





Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward
Salmond, Alex


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lidington, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sims, Roger


Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James  (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sykes, John


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thomason, Roy


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tyler, Paul


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Wallace, James


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Welsh, Andrew


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wigley, Dafydd


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Noes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Sackville, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No.225, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert

'but not the Protocol on the Transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union'.—[Mr. Cash.]

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

The Chairman: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Ayes Lobby.

The committee having divided: Ayes 74, Noes 297.

Division No. 234]
[9.12 pm


AYES


Ashton, Joe
Livingstone, Ken


Austin-Walker, John
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
Maginnis, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Mahon, Alice


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Marlow, Tony


Bennett, Andrew F.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Body, Sir Richard
Moate, Sir Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Butcher, John
Olner, William


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Parry, Robert


Cann, Jamie
Porter, David (Waveney)


Cash, William
Redmond, Martin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Rowlands, Ted


Cox, Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Cran, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cryer, Bob
Simpson, Alan


Cummings, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Spearing, Nigel


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gardiner, Sir George
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Gill, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Godsiff, Roger
Trimble, David


Harvey, Nick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hawksley, Warren
Watson, Mike


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Winnick, David


Jessel, Toby
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Knapman, Roger
Wise, Audrey


Lawrence, Sir Ivan



Legg, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Michael Lord.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burns, Simon


Alton, David
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowden, Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Dafis, Cynog


Brandreth, Gyles
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Day, Stephen





Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans. Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber. David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Milligan, Stephen


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew






Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomason, Roy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Tom
Tredinnick, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Salmond, Alex
Trotter, Neville


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tyler, Paul


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Wallace, James


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Speed, Sir Keith
Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Welsh, Andrew


Spink, Dr Robert
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sproat, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No.268, in page 1, line 10, after'1992', insert

'but not Article 12.1 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank'. —[Mr. Cash.]

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 82, Noes 295.

Division No. 235]
[9.29pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Austin-Walker, John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Barnes, Harry
Galloway, George


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, Sir George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gill, Christopher


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Body, Sir Richard
Harvey, Nick


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jessel, Toby


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cann, Jamie
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Carttiss, Michael
Legg, Barry


Cash, William
Leighton, Ron


Chisholm, Malcolm
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Corston, Ms Jean
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McKelvey, William


Cran, James
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Maginnis, Ken


Cummings, John
Mahon, Alice


Davidson, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)





Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Olner, William
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Redmond, Martin
Trimble, David


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Simpson, Alan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. Michael Lord and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Roger Knapman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Day, Stephen


Ainsworth, Peter (Easf Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Aitken, Jonathan
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dicks, Terry


Alton, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heald, Oliver


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Dafis, Cynog
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hendry, Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Salmond, Alex


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stephen, Michael


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tredinnick, David


Milligan, Stephen
Trend, Michael


Mills, Iain
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tyler, Paul


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Needham, Richard
Wallace, James


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wells, Bowen


Norris, Steve
Welsh, Andrew


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray





Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wigley, Dafydd



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will know that amendment No.426 deals with the European Parliament and with the proposals for the drawing up of the new voting arrangements in all the member states. You will probably know that this evening the Italian people, by a referendum, have decided that they will not have proportional representation—

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I call amendment No. 426.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Order. I have alreadly called amendment No. 426.

Amendment proposed: No. 426, in page1, 17, at end add
'with the Proviso that Article 138(3) is fully implemented in the United Kingdom before the fourth direct6 elections to the European parliament.'—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 36, Noes 325.

Division No. 237]
[10.03 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Eggar, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Elletson, Harold


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alton, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallic, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Dafis, Cynog
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Johnston, Sir Russell


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkwood, Archy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Tyler, Paul


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wallace, James


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Mr. Andrew MacKay.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)






Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Ms Janet (Rosdale)
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Austin-Walker, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beggs, Roy
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F.
Galbraith, Sam


Benton, Joe
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gardiner, Sir George


Betts, Clive
Garrett, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyce, Jimmy
Godsiff, Roger


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butcher, John
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harvey, Nick


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cran, James
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jessel, Toby


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S.


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Knapman, Roger


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry





Leighton, Ron
Radice, Giles


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Randall, Stuart


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Richardson, Jo


Lord, Michael
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mans, Keith
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marlow, Tony
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sweeney, Walter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Trimble, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, William
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilkinson, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pope, Greg
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wise, Audrey


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. John Spellar.


Quin, Ms Joyce

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'Clock, THE CHAIFMAN left the Chair to repot progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting the European Communities (Amendment)Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes295.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Miss Fookes. In the normal course of events, the next Question would be, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. As this is, in effect, a one-clause Bill, may I put it to you that we should debate that Question, just in case you might think otherwise?

The second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): I have already given consideration to hat matter, and I have come to the conclusion that adequate debate has taken place on all aspects of the clause.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 67(Debate on schedule standing part), That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 96.

Division No. 238]
[10.21 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alton, David
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesharn)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Bates, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fabricant, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
French, Douglas


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gorst, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway. Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawkins, Nick


Cormack, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hendry, Charles


Dafis, Cynog
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hicks, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Day, Stephen
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)





Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Speed, Sir Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Llwyd, Elfyn
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, David
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sumberg, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tracey, Richard


Milligan, Stephen
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Tyler, Paul


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Wallace, James


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Welsh, Andrew


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wiggin, Sir Jerry






Willetts, David



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Young, Sir George (Acton)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Adams, Mrs Irene
Leighton, Ron


Ainger, Nick
Lewis, Terry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Livingstone, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Lord, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
McAllion, John


Beggs, Roy
McKelvey, William


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McWilliam, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Madden, Max


Body, Sir Richard
Maginnis, Ken


Budgen, Nicholas
Mahon, Alice


Butcher, John
Marlow, Tony


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Shettleston Heeley)


Cann, Jamie
Mitchell, Austin  (Gt Grimsby)


Carttiss, Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cash, William
Olner, William


Chisholm, Malcolm
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clapham, Michael
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Pickthall, Colin


Connarty, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Redmond, Martin


Cox, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Cran, James
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Cummings, John
Rowlands, Ted


Davidson, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Simpson, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Galloway, George
Spearing, Nigel


Gardiner, Sir George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gerrard, Neil
Steinberg, Gerry


Gill, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Trimble, David


Graham, Thomas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wilkinson, John


Hall, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Harvey, Nick
Winnick, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc't'ld)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Wise, Audrey


Jamieson, David



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Bob Oyer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Knapman, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION

Amendment made: No. 420, in page 1, line 23, at end add
'and unless Her Majesty's Government has reported to Parliament on its proposals for the co-ordination of economic policies, its role in the European Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) in pursuit of the objectives of Article 2 as provided for in Articles 103 and 102a, and the work of the European Monetary Institute in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union.'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): This debate provides the Committee with the

opportunity, if it wishes to take it, to examine the procedure provided by the treaty and the Bill for moving to stage 3. There are three elements to the arrangements, two of which are provided by the treaty and one which is provided by clause 2.
Article 109j provides for the transitional arrangements negotiated at Maastricht. The article contains four key elements, for those who wish to read it. From the Committees's point of view, the key element is the terms of the United Kingdom protocol which makes it clear that the House of Commons and the country are under no commitment to move to stage 3 unless and until the House has made a clear decision that that is what the country wishes to do.
Clause 2 gives effect to the commitment that we have given that this country is under no obligation to move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union unless the House has passed an Act of Parliament to give effect to that intention. I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Shore: I am glad that the Committee has the opportunity to debate again what I suppose the Government regard as the jewel in their negotiating crown, the so-called opt-out protocol from stage 3 of economic and monetary union.
We have heard tonight the Financial Secretary summarise remarks that he made very late at night on Wednesday 24 March, when we sat for an unbelievably long time. Our debates lasted from about 5 pm to noon the following day. Naturally and inevitably, few hon. Members of any party attended and there was, of course, no one in the Press Gallery to pick up a word of what the debate was about.
As it happened, there were three consecutive debates which encompassed the evil heart of EMU. We debated the powers, independence and non-accountability of the European central bank; the totally unacceptable 3 per cent. of gross domestic product capping of Government borrowing requirement; and the content of stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union.
Those of us who participated in those debates remarked that it was monstrous that one subject should follow another, with the Financial Secretary answering as best he could all three of them, without the Committee having the chance to study the Hansard report of the Minister's comments in one debate in relation to the two others. As they were totally interlocked as debates, that was a disgraceful way of proceeding and a great loss to the Committee and to the country, thus preventing a serious and considered debate that would be reported and made known to our fellow countrymen.

Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, after all, negotiated the arrangements for the protocol—took no part in that debate? The most that we saw of him in the course of 16 hours was when he popped in for two minutes to talk about some matter or other. My right hon. Friend played no part in debating a range of issues, including white Wednesday: the so-called betrayal of trust that preceded it; the fact that we were subsequently told that there were fault lines; and the remark by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that we would enter the ERM when the conditions were right. In fact, only last week, at ECOFIN, Ministers said that there were no fault lines.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, not for the first time, that long interventions are to be deplored.

Mr. Shore: I recall very well the unhappy events to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I regret to say that, in the middle of that night, I noted with concern the absence of my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, whom I am glad to see in his place tonight and welcome. After all, my hon. Friend's powers as a future Chancellor of the Exchequer would be vigorously and seriously affected by the treaty's provisions. It is therefore helpful to have my hon. Friend present. I only wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also was in his place.
Our last debate took the form of the Financial Secretary doing his utmost to give reassurances. On studying his remarks, most members of the Committee will find that his reassurances failed to be reassuring.

Mr. Renton: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I remind him of his incarnation as Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in a Labour Government. If the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer had set the right hon. Gentleman the criterion of a public sector borrowing requirement of only 3 per cent. of GNP, would he not have thought that that was a reasonable criterion at which to aim?

Mr. Shore: In 1967, which is the date to which the hon. Gentleman refers, this country had less than 3 per cent. unemployed and was just returning to a balanced current balance of payments account. It did not have the vast deficit that exists today. In those circumstances, I might well have accepted with a good heart a 3 per cent. of GDP borrowing requirement.
However, when one considers this country's present situation, the fact that the Chancellor's best estimate is a borrowing requirement of 8 per cent. of GDP this year alone, looks at the miserable state of one's fellow countrymen, 3 million of whom are registered unemployed, and considers our appalling trade indebtedness and the continuing devastation of our manufacturing industry, one knows that it would be intolerable and impossible to accept any such constraint now or, I suspect, for some years ahead—unless one wanted to inflict further misery on our fellow citizens and to increase unemployment by another couple of million to squeeze the economy and purchasing power to the level necessary to bring the deficit back into balance.
We faced the Financial Secretary with the reasons for our dissatisfaction and asked him about the nature of our commitment to economic and monetary union. Far from denying it, the Financial Secretary said:
we accept the commitment to economic and monetary union, to which this country has signed up several times—including in the early 1970s.
He did not dispute the commitment, but he played about with the idea—frankly, we gained no reassurance from it—that, although we are committed in principle to economic and monetary union, it could be that there is some kind of economic and monetary union other than the one in the treaty which eventually we might accept and persuade our European partners to accept, too.
10.45 pm
The Financial Secretary was then asked a question which very much concerns us: does our commitment in principle to economic and monetary union and to the first

two stages of economic and monetary union, which is agreed by the Financial Secretary, imply our return to the exchange rate mechanism? In reply to that question, the Financial Secretary said:
It is true that it is Government policy to return to membership of the exchange rate mechanism when the Government believe that it is in this country's interest to do so.
We are therefore committed to returning to the ERM. That is a policy pronouncement of the most serious kind.
The Financial Secretary of course reserves judgment about when the Government believe that it will be in the interests of this country to do so, but I am not convinced that I can see much prospect of it being in the interests of this country to rejoin, particularly if it is an exchange rate mechanism, as we know that it is, which is programmed to be the stepping stone to a permanent interrelationship of exchange rates, leading on to a single currency.
It is precisely the rigidity which has been introduced into the ERM that has made it such an appalling affliction not only upon our country but upon most of the countries of Europe. That, more than any other single cause, is the reason for high unemployment both in Britain and throughout western Europe, the political consequences of which have been obvious and devastating to the Government of France. I suspect that they will also be devastating to the Governments of Spain and Italy.
We are committed to rejoining the exchange rate mechanism, but the circumstances for doing so are undefined, except that we are told that it will be when the Government believe that it is in the interests of this country to do so. We were not reassured, therefore, by what we were told on that occasion.
The Financial Secretary sought to reassure us on another point. He said that, although we are committed to economic and monetary union,
I do not accept that it is necessary or, indeed, desirable, within the principle of subsidiarity, to remove fiscal policy or wider economic policy responsibility from member states." —[Official Report, 24 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1042–44.]
His point was that there was no equivalent commitment regarding economic policy as there was—which he accepted—in stages 1 and 2 regarding monetary policy.
That was not a happy statement, either. When we turn to what we are committed to in terms of economic policy, we find that it is a very considerable obligation. I remind the Committee of those obligations. We are committed to article 103 of the treaty, which states that
Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern".
The treaty then makes the point:
The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community".
After the broad guidelines, article 103.4 says:
Where it is established, under the procedure … that the economic policies of a Member State are not consistent with the broad guidelines referred to … or … risk jeopardizing the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, make the necessary recommendations to the Member States concerned. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, decide to make its recommendations public.
That is the old coercive business of collective, multilateral surveillance followed by the condemnation of any country whose economic policies are judged to be against or not consistent with those of the majority. The sins of omission


or of commission are then made public and broadcast to the market, with all the uncertainties and instabilities, as a direct means by which to coerce a member state that falls out of line. That is yet another contradiction in what the Financial Secretary told us. The Financial Secretary knows well that the belief that economic policies are a matter of common concern is written into economic policy and leads to reasons why we should conform.
The Financial Secretary then said that we need not get worried about obligations to avoid excess deficit. He said that it was Government policy anyway to avoid excess deficit. Of course, However, when he was pressed a bit harder, he said that 8 per cent. of gross domestic product was not an excess deficit because the Government had judged it to be a proper deficit and that is why they had proposed it to the House. That is fine. However, if the Government are right in their judgment on the matter, an excess deficit is simply what the Government at any time decide that it is and there is no real meaning to the treaty obligation to 3 per cent. of GDP as the benchmark or to its use as the major and central means—not the sole criterion—by which to judge whether an excess deficit has been incurred.
Those are all obligations, commitments and pressures that will fall on us in stages 1 and 2. In stage 2, to which we are committed, we do not have to face the dangers of penalties and fines being imposed on us which we would face if we were in stage 3, from which the Government have got their exemption. However, the pressure is there all the time and we agreed to best endeavours. On top of all that, we know very well that how we proceed in all these matters is constantly to be reported on and invigilated by the Commission and by other European agencies.

Mr. Spearing: To put it in plain language which we in east London would understand, is my right hon. Friend saying in effect that, whereas stage 3 is rigid iron bars, this is very strong elastic, and that we might as well be in stage 3 for all practical purposes? If that is so, the great opt-out, the bit of paper that the Prime Minister came back waving from Maastricht, is not worth very much. Is that right?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has got it very nearly right —[Interruption.] Very nearly. There are two crucial questions. One is whether the Government are right in saying that the legal obligations on us are less than those imposed on the other 10. That is still a matter for some argument. Many hon. Members are not satisfied that it is a lesser legal obligation than that which is imposed on the 10. In terms of political pressure and in terms of economic pressure —

Mr. Spearing: Bankers' pressure.

Mr. Shore: —and bankers' pressure, it will indeed be a continuing, powerful, public and private constraint on all the Government's activities in so far as they depart from the common guidelines set down and the common policies recommended by the European Community, not only for economic policy, but for monetary policy as well.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend understand the attitude of a Labour leadership which finds it perfectly acceptable to abstain, if not to vote with the Government, on powers that would make it impossible for any Opposition party that formed a Government to take radical steps to improve its political, and, certainly, its economic, policies for the future?

Mr. Shore: It has all been said before, but I find it quite simply incomprehensible, not only in relation to a Labour Government. If a Conservative Government had to accept what appear to be the limitations imposed on borrowing that the treaty and its protocols proclaim, they, too, would find it totally unacceptable. As we know, the Government have recommended to the House only this year that we accept a GDP borrowing requirement of 8 per cent.

Mr. Marlow: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are putting it around among their own supporters—they dare not do it publicly, of course—that these provisions of the treaty are a load of nonsense and that they intend to prevent them from happening. But the treaty is by way of being a contract. What are the chances of the other parties to the contract letting the Government get away with presuming that the provisions of the treaty are a load of nonsense and that we shall not have to apply them in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: That is one of the great dangers. We deceive ourselves—though we do not deceive others—if we think that there is no real content or danger in such treaties because they are unenforceable and simply will not work. My fear is not that we would necessarily reach economic and monetary union. Rather, I fear the damage that we shall inflict upon ourselves in our efforts to get there. Given the present condition of the British economy, that must surely be at the forefront of our minds as a really major hazard.
Very much a part of stage 2 of economic and monetary union is the whole doctrine of convergence and the criteria that are laid down for it. As part of the transitional provisions, article 109j says:
The Commission and the EMI"—
the European Monetary Institute—
shall report to the Council on the progress made in the fulfilment by the Member States of their obligations regarding the achievement of economic and monetary union.

Mr. Spearing: Report on.

Mr. Shore: The Commission and the EMI will report on the member states' progress, presumably annually. The matters upon which they will report are the so-called convergence criteria that are laid down in the protocol referred to in article 109j and the extent to which countries are conforming to them.
Those four criteria will become very important, and may dominate future debates in the House. First, our cost of living must not be appreciably more than those of the best three performing member states—in other words, we must keep prices down. That is not a bad objective in itself, although much depends on just how serious the deflationary problems are in other countries. I would not necessarily rejoice if other European countries achieved zero inflation if the price of that was a massive increase in unemployment and a fall in output in those countries.
The second criterion relates to the Government's budgetary position. That refers to the excess deficit. We must conform to the 3 per cent. of GDP criterion—or the approach to it—as laid down in the relevant articles and in the protocol.
The third of the convergence criteria relates to the exchange rate. That must surely cause the Financial Secretary some difficulty, as, clearly, we have to be a


member of the European exchange rate mechanism if we are to conform to the behaviour of the pound within the exchange rate mechanism which is laid down in article 3 of the protocol. According to that performance, the fluctuation margins must be observed for at least two years without causing severe tensions.
The last of the four criteria relates to nominal long-term interest rates which must not exceed more than 2 per cent. of the interest rates in the three best performing countries in Europe. Those are very deflationary criteria. From some of the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, one would have thought that the kind of protocols written into the Bill were not the kind that I have described, with their demands about monetary and inflationary criteria, but criteria relating to the achievement of full employment, a balance on current account or to output.
From the speeches that we have heard, we would suppose that all those sensible things had been written in. Not a bit of it. Instead there are the very old-fashioned, pre-Keynesian criteria and the experience that we had between the wars in terms of almost nil inflation and massive unemployment.
11 pm
I cannot see any attraction in the content of stages I and 2, to which we are committed in the treaty by our own signature, and our simply saying that there are dangers and that we must debate those matters but we are saved from the ultimate horrors of the third stage because we have not signed to firmly fixed exchange rates, a single currency, a European central bank and all the disciplines that go with that.
The safeguards are quite inadequate. There is a terrible blur between stages 1, 2 and 3 and we would be fooling ourselves and our fellow citizens and voters if we said that we were satisfied with the opt-out, however great a prize the Government claim it to be.

Mr. John Townend: I welcome the Government's right to opt out of stage 3 and the single currency. However, I am concerned about whether the Government will ever take advantage of the opt-out. As I see it, for the Government to opt out of a single currency, they would have to go against their own policy, because they have made it clear time and again that it is Government policy that we should be at the centre of Europe.
If we exercise our opt-out and our colleagues in Europe move towards a single currency, how can we be at the centre of Europe when we are one of only a few who have not accepted the single currency? That worries me. I cannot help but wonder whether the opt-out was included to get the Bill through the House and receive the approval of the British public.
I am in favour of an economic Community. I was really upset when the "E" was dropped from the EEC without a by-your-leave. I am also in favour of the single market. However, I am opposed to full monetary union.
Monetary union without a single currency will not work. It will be impossible to get the various economies of the various disparate countries in the Community to converge. The ERM, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made clear, was meant to be the forerunner of monetary union and a single currency. What a disaster that has been.
Earlier this year, we saw the effect of our being forced, by our membership of the ERM, to fix our interest rates, not at a level appropriate for the British economy, but at a level appropriate for the German economy, because the German and British economies were diverging. Therefore, we had to have interest rates at excessively high levels when this country was going deeper and deeper into recession.
It was the deepest and longest recession this century. How many jobs were lost and how many businesses went bankrupt because we were stuck in the exchange rate mechanism? I must remind hon. Members that those who said last summer that this policy was disastrous for our country were told that they were economically illiterate. Four weeks later, the Government were proudly telling us that we were out of the exchange rate mechanism and that we could fix our interest rates at appropriate levels for the British economy. Interest rates came down rapidly by four per cent.
If we were still in the exchange rate mechanism, our interest rates—like the interest rates of France—would probably be much higher. Far from seeing the green shoots of recovery, the United Kingdom would not just be in recession; it would be in economic collapse.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is missing one crucial point—no country can set its interest rates for its domestic circumstances without paying attention to what is happening in other countries within an internal capital market. There are no restrictions on the movement of capital, so capital will go to the market which has the best hedge against inflation and the best real rate of return. That is precisely what is happening today in the market, although we are not in the exchange rate mechanism.
Interest rates have fallen. The currency has also fallen, and there are considerable inflationary concerns about that fall. It is a trade-off. Although there was a disequilibrium because of the problems in Germany, the reality is that the exchange rate mechanism has been a success since 1979. It is a great pity that the United Kingdom did not join it earlier.

Mr. Townend: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not true. A country can fix its interest rates at a level appropriate to its economy as long as it is prepared to take the consequences on the exchange rate. If one believes in floating exchange rates, it is practical to fix interest rates to suit the United Kingdom.

Mr. Budgen: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) falling into the trap into which so many people fall? He is saying that, because some prices are affected, it has an effect on inflation. Surely the message that was drummed home so often through the mistakes of the 1970s is that there is only one cause of inflation—an increase in the money supply. We should not confuse the cause of inflation with a relative change in prices that may occur when wages, the exchange rate or any of those factors affect some prices but not all of them.

Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend is right. If my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) was correct, we would have the same interest rates as France. Of course that is not true. The great economic successes of the Conservative Administration were based on a floating exchange rate, monetary policy and controlling public expenditure. As soon as we moved from monetary control


to an exchange rate policy, and as soon as we started giving in to every pressure group by increasing public expenditure and increasing the deficit, we got into trouble.
It is not simply the United Kingdom which has suffered through the exchange rate mechanism. We have seen what happened in Ireland, Spain and Italy. We have also seen what happened in France, which is the birthplace of the EEC. France, which is the most communautaire country in Europe, has been driven deeper into recession because it had to fix its interest rates at a level appropriate to Germany. When France has an inflation rate of something like 2 to 3 per cent. and a fairly successful economy, it is nonsense that it must have real interest rates at a record level which is creating more unemployment and driving the country into deeper recession.
Let us be honest: the whole of Europe, apart from the United Kingdom, is moving into recession as a result of the failure of Germany's economic policy. That failure is being transferred to the rest of the countries in the Community because of the exchange rate mechanism.
It would be disastrous if we had to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. We can never be sure that in future, even if our economies start to converge with Germany, they might then start to diverge. If that happened, we would be in the same position as we were last summer.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Townend: I shall simply finish making this point.
The Government should have learnt the lesson from the damage which was done to our economy. They should not be afraid of upsetting our European partners. They should say honestly that they do not believe that we should go back into the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will concede that there is a serious risk that either by political or by legal pressures, we shall be forced back into the ERM if the Maastricht treaty is ratified. Do we conclude from his powerful and moving oration that he proposes to vote against clause 2 stand part?

Mr. Townend: I do not know, because by voting against clause 2, I would be voting against the Government's opt-out, with which I agree. But I assure my hon. Friend that I certainly shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, because I believe that it would be disastrous for Britain.
If we move to a single currency, inevitably we shall move towards a federal united states of Europe.

Sir David Mitchell: As only one country within the EC at present falls within the set of criteria for convergence which we have to meet, does my hon. Friend seriously suggest that there will be a sufficiently large block of countries which will fit the criteria for moving forward to stage 3 and a single currency? Is that a reality or a dream?

Mr. Townend: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is most unlikely to happen. It is interesting that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who intend to vote for Maastricht, including many members of the Government, have said when they have tried to persuade me to vote for the Bill, "John, I don't know why you're worried, because it is never going to happen." The whole

thrust of the Maastricht treaty is economic and monetary union. If economic and monetary union will not be practical in the foreseeable future, and it will be impossible to meet the criteria, why are we pressing on with this useless Bill?
I have always believed passionately in the nation state. We are an island country. While I strongly support our membership of an economic community, I am opposed to giving up our sovereignty and moving step by step towards a federal united states of Europe in which more and more decisions would be taken in Brussels, and the House of Commons would progressively be no more than a county council.
I am even more appalled—I hope to catch your eye in a later debate, Dame Janet—that we are making a major constitutional change when the British people have not had the opportunity to express their views. When every major party and its leaders support a particular policy, a general election is no way to find the view of the British people. They have no way of expressing it. The political and bureaucratic classes and big business men in Europe and Britain all seem to have been caught by the dream of a federal united states of Europe. It is strange that they think that it will work. Europe is made up of various countries with various languages and different cultures. When we look across Europe, we see that the multicultural, multilingual and multi-religious federations of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are breaking up. It will never work. The whole treaty is flawed. I strongly urge hon. Members to vote against it.

Mr. Leighton: As the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, clause 2 is the essence of the Bill. It deals with economic and monetary union. It is at the heart of the centralising drive of the Bill. There is no subsidiarity in monetary policy. Short-term interest rates will be the same in Glasgow as in Naples, Berlin or Lisbon. The unaccountable central bank will be by far the most powerful institution in the Community.
Unprecedented powers will be surrendered to an autarchy of central bankers and it will be unlawful to seek to influence them. I find that prospect appalling. The fact that the Labour party is in favour of it is inexplicable. In fact, it is not only in favour, but gushingly enthusiastic about the idea.
There has been a role reversal, because the Conservatives say that they have an opt-out—I do not know how realistic that is having listened to the hon. Member for Bridlington. The Danes also say that they have an opt-out and the Germans need another vote in both Houses of their Parliament.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend just said that the Danes have an opt-out, but one of the consequences of the Edinburgh summit was their formal notification to the other Governments that they have opted out of economic and monetary union. They have already opted out.

Mr. Leighton: I congratulate the Danes. The Labour party seems to have no such hesitations, because, from what I have heard, it cannot wait to get economic and monetary union. I find that inexplicable. Such behaviour is a recent aberration because it is contrary to policy over the years.
At the time of the 1975 referendum, the Harold Wilson Government issued a manifesto that was sent to every household. It stated:
There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards economic and monetary union.
That Government recognised the threat.
This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will recall that in 1978 the Labour Government published a White Paper to explain their decision not to join the European monetary system.
Those documents are history, but let us consider a more recent publication, "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change". Everything was put in the melting pot and that document contained the Labour party's definitive views. On Europe, it stated:
We see the path to future progress as being one of closer and closer co-operation rather than an attempt to create a European union.
The Labour party did not want European union, but we are now discussing a union treaty. It also stated:
We oppose moves towards a European monetary union, which could further impede progress in this area.
It also made it clear that the Labour party was against joining the exchange rate mechanism. That document contains the latest policy statement of which I am aware.
The Labour party has stood on its head on Maastricht. Its behaviour has been undignified. There is a limit to how many times it can do that, because if it changes its policy so often, can anyone believe what it says?

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: I believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to help me, so I will give way.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman should accept some reassurance from me. His party has stood on its head on a number of occasions, hut my party has stood on the fence. At least his party has taken a view about the advantages and disadvantages of the single currency, but apparently it is impossible for the Government to decide what those might be—they leave open the possibility of either going in or not. It seems that even the experience of 16 September is not conclusive for the Government; they need some other indication of what is to be in the national interest before they decide to adopt the single currency. It seems to be almost impossible to provide evidence that will enable the Government to make up their mind.

Mr. Leighton: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to evidence, and he was right to do so as I have heard no explanation for the change in the Labour party's view.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Leighton: I do not want to keep giving way, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend as she played a leading part in Labour party councils on such matters. Therefore, I would be grateful to hear from her.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us no longer play a part in Labour party councils precisely because our views were clear cut and we asked questions that were found unacceptable by those who now propose to speak on behalf of the Labour party? I shall ask my hon. Friend a simple question: does not he find it

deeply saddening that there has been no clear debate of the pros and cons of the movement towards the monetary system and monetary controls, either among the Labour party or the electorate? There has been a series of slippery smudges that have confused and misled, not only his constituents, but many of mine, irrespective of their political complexion. Is not that the saddest condemnation of Her Majesty's official Opposition?

Mr. Leighton: I know that my hon. Friend was a member of the national executive council for many years and represented us in European matters and, like her, I have heard of no proper explanation. I have heard of no intellectual justification for the change. Perhaps someone thought that it was a clever electoral move and a way to win votes. If that was the case, it was a mistake as we know from our private polls that at the last election there were two issues on which support for the Labour party was well behind that for the Conservative party. One of those issues was the economy and the other was Europe. Therefore, the policy did not help us.
I have searched through all the files that I have kept over the years for any justification or explanation of the change. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is having an interesting conversation with his colleague, published any articles of an intellectual nature to explain the changes. I have looked through my files and could find only one such article, which was published by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, for whom I have great respect and affection. He is one of the Labour party's thinkers. In the Tribune newspaper on 10 November 1989 my hon. Friend said:
No ifs or buts, it must be the ERM.
That is the only intellectual case for the policy that I can find. Perhaps my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Oxford, East published arguments —I do not know.
My hon. Friend continued:
We must have currency stability".
According to him, that was why we had to join the ERM. He said:
ERM participation removes currency speculation from the list of the immediate worries faced by the British Government—especially a Labour Government.
He continued, lyrically:
Entry enables us to wrap the strength of other central banks of Europe around our currency to defend against speculation.
The idea was that we would join the ERM, the pound would be put in an emergency ward and all the other central banks would wrap themselves around the currency so that we would have no more problems and speculation and would not have to worry about the pound.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Leighton: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, when I have made my point.

Mr. Dalyell: It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Leighton: I have made a mistake, so I shall give way.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is lyrical about many things, including rain forests, Cuba and Nicaragua, but I have not heard him being lyrical about the EC.

Mr. Leighton: I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for whom I have great respect and affection, who was a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East as an Opposition spokesman. I made a mistake with the constituency, for which I apologise.
In any case, my hon. Friend said:
It means that the Government can concentrate on the crucial task of rebuilding the domestic economy without having to devote time, attention and energy to defending the pound.
So the ERM would take care of all the pound's problems. I know of no other intellectual justification besides this one of the view that we have adopted.
Referring to speculation, my hon. Friend said:
ERM membership virtually removes that problem.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the article was written in November last year, after the events of September. Have I got it wrong?

Mr. Leighton: The article appeared on 10 November 1989.
On the day the policy was announced, 15 October 1990, I said—it is recorded in Hansard—
I prophesy that he has it wrong and that the pound will not stay at DM2.95.—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 936.]
Exactly a year later, I said:
It is always dangerous to prophesy, but I am prepared to do so and say that it will not be possible to hold the pound at DM2.95.
I should have thought that those of us who got it right would be listened to now rather more carefully, but I do not think we will be. And those who got it wrong should apologise.
The ERM was a dummy run for the single currency; it was a taster. When industry was crying out for lower interest rates, those rates were 4 per cent. higher than they needed to be, to try to defend the indefensible. They tipped the country into recession, in fact. The ERM made more than another 1 million people unemployed. Growth, employment and prosperity—all were subordinated to pegging the pound in the ERM.
Yet, after all the pain, all the suffering, all the lost jobs, all the houses repossessed, and all the businesses closed down, the policy failed and we were blown out of the ERM. The Government's policy collapsed in spectacular and cataclysmic failure, but not before they threw away the country's entire foreign exchange reserves. In short, the policy ended in ignominy and humiliation.
It was not only the Government's policy that failed, however. Our policy failed, too. It was a bipartisan policy, and right up until the day before black Wednesday Labour party spokesmen were saying that there should be no realignment. So when the Government's entire economic policy collapsed, the Labour party derived no advantage from it because we had foolishly backed that policy.
The question is: have we learnt anything? It is doubtful that we have. It is difficult to know, because the people who supported the policy, who got it wrong, have not commented on its failure. They have remained silent, perhaps because of their embarrassment.
If we support the treaty, and economic and monetary union, and a single currency, we must be willing to rejoin the ERM. In other words, we must be prepared to make the same mistake all over again. Why cannot we grasp the

simple truth that exchange rates must reflect economic fundamentals? If economies diverge, as those in the Community are diverging, so will their currencies. A strong currency reflects a strong economy, not the other way around. We cannot achieve a strong currency by passing a resolution to that effect, or by artificially pegging it to a nominal exchange rate. The exchange rate is no more than the price of a currency compared with that of other currencies.
If countries' economic performance or rates of inflation vary, so will the value of their currencies—their exchange rates. There have just been movements in the exchange rate between the Japanese yen and the American dollar. Problems arise if such movement is not allowed to take place, as we saw recently in east Germany. If country A links its currency to country B which has lower inflation and higher productivity, country A's currency will be continually overvalued and the currency of country B will be undervalued. A's exports become dearer, imports become cheaper, the balance of payments deficit grows, factory closures proceed apace, and there is unemployment.
Countries can join a single currency mechanism only if there is real convergence, if their economies are working in the same way and have similar rates of growth, wealth, employment, investment, productivity and labour costs. The treaty does not mention real convergence. As it is a monetarist treaty, all its criteria are monetary. It talks about fiscal deficits and Government debt, rates of inflation and about joining the narrow band of the ERM. There is hardly a word in the treaty about employment.

Mr. Winnick: There is some reference to employment, but it is so small that I can understand my hon. Friend not noticing it. Does he agree that there is a great contrast between the passing, slight reference to social harmony, employment and other matters and all the details in article 104C which sets out, section by section, the penalties that will be imposed on member states if they exceed the 3 per cent? Therefore, it is clear that the treaty is a recipe for higher unemployment and more deflation. The ERM will seem insignificant compared with the hardship and misery that will result if economic and monetary union is brought about.

Mr. Leighton: That is why the convergence criteria are outrageous to a party of the left. We are about to enter stage 2, which will require budget deficits of 3 per cent. and Government debts of 60 per cent. That will mean huge cuts in public expenditure throughout the Community. Maastricht means co-ordinated deflation, just when the opposite is needed. Officially, unemployment in the Community is over 11 per cent. The average in the Community is higher than in this country, but in real terms it is much higher. Next year there will be zero growth. The European Community is the world's unemployment blackspot and it will get worse because in stage 2 we will try to reach the convergence criteria.
As I say, there will be co-ordinated deflation. That will mean great upheavals and much suffering. It will destroy several Governments. It has already destroyed the Mitterrand Government. They had 10 years in which to show what a socialist Government could do, but they have been destroyed because they linked up with the ERM. The same thing will happen to the Spanish Government. Surely


the level of Government deficit should be decided by the Government of the day according to the prevailing circumstances. It is ludicrous and arrogant to lay down Government deficits in an international treaty. 1 have heard of the end of history, but this is the end of economics because the subject cannot be discussed: it is laid out in a treaty.
Who wins elections will not matter very much. It will not matter whether it is the leader of the Conservative party or the leader of the Labour party because if the Bill is passed we will know what the economic policy is to be. We all know. The deficit must not be more than 3 per cent. The Government debt must not be more than 60 per cent. Inflation must be within 1·5 per cent. of the best, and interest rates within 2 per cent. of the best, and we must have successful membership of the narrow band of the ERM. That will be policy. It will not matter whether the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monk lands, East (Mr. Smith) wins the election. It will not matter a damn, or a row of beans. This international treaty, which is legally enforceable, will lay down the policy.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We come back to the fundamental reason why so many hon. Members oppose the Maastricht treaty. It is because it is a treaty of federal union, despite protocols and opts-outs, which are untested. We are being led, step by step, with a light blindfold around our eyes, down the road to a federal Europe.

Mr. Leighton: The treaty means that, at the next general election, policy cannot be affected by voting. Our democracy will be devalued and undermined and politics will become redundant, pointless.

Mr. Winterton: What about politicians?

Mr. Leighton: The politicians in the House of Commons, who have been elected, will not be allowed to influence what is happening.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this point? Perhaps we are experiencing a foretaste of what he has warned us about for the future, in as much as we have a de facto coalition Government who, on the matter of European union, are driven by an extraordinary consensus on the line laid down in the Maastricht treaty, without any reference to the wishes of the electorate.

Mr. Leighton: I was taken, earlier this evening, to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East chiding the Paymaster General for not making a good enough case. He prompted him, telling him what he should have said, and how he should have put the case. There is a bipartisan coalition between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Winterton: Tripartisan.

Mr. Leighton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right, and we should also include the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).
The matter is serious. If we have a single currency, which is the objective of the treaty, we get a single central bank which, we are told, will be independent. That is a nice word, although autonomous would also do. But independent of whom? It will be independent of us, of Parliament, of anybody who has been democratically

elected. It will be beyond the reach of the ballot box. The electorates of all the countries of the Community will be stripped of their powers.
I have always understood the historic purpose of the Labour party to be to bring money under democratic control, although some may think that a Utopian idea. That was one reason why Clem Attlee nationalised the Bank of England. He saw what bankers had done in the 1930s and he thought that banking should be brought under democratic control. He must be turning in his grave, given what the party is saying at the moment.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that, on Second Reading of the Bill to nationalise the Bank of England, Robert Boothby voted in favour and a number of Keynesian Tories abstained because they took the view that the bank had been a major cause of the unemployment and depression in the 1930s. They believed that there should be political control of the bank.

Mr. Leighton: That is exactly right. They saw what the bankers had done before the war and people, having fought for six years, were not prepared to accept a world run by bankers. Clem Attlee nationalised the Bank of England, but we shall have to change that and say "Clem, you got it wrong". I am not prepared to do that.
If we pass the Bill, all monetary, exchange rate and budgetary policy—all the bread-and-butter issues of British politics—will be handed to institutions beyond our control. That is the opposite of what the Labour party stands for. In those circumstances, what would be the Labour party's purpose? What could it do? Why should anybody vote for it? We should be preparing ourselves for a fate similar to that of Mitterrand's socialists.
The bank's objectives are laid out in the treaty, but it does not mention unemployment. The only object of the bank—the only aim that overrides and excludes everything else—is price stability. Of course, we want low inflation, but since when has price stability been the sole or even primary aim of the Labour party? If we make price stability our only aim, we betray everything that we stand for. Any fool can reduce inflation by destroying the economy, by inducing recession, by graveyard economics and by creating mass unemployment. That is what the Government have tried to do, but even they have been forced back.
I have a briefing from the Bank of England for November 1992, which says:
Had the United Kingdom remained in the ERM it is quite possible that price stability would have been achieved during next year"—
that is this year.
Although clearly desirable in itself, price stability attained so quickly might have intensified the problems of domestic debt deflation.
The bank is saying that we could have had wonderful price stability, but that the price would have been too high, so we did not go down that road.
Although the bank says that we should not go only for price stability, the Labour party seems to agree that price stability should be the sole aim of policy. In the past, Labour's economic policy has always had four aims: low inflation; a balance of payments equilibrium; economic growth—when we were in the ERM, growth was negative; and high employment. That is what the Labour party has always believed in. It is difficult sometimes to keep all the balls in the air, but throughout the history of the Labour


party it has never been our policy to give sole priority to the one aim of price stability, yet that is exactly what the treaty spells out in the clearest possible terms.
We were able to leave the exchange rate mechanism —we got it wrong. We cut interest rates by 4 per cent. and now have a more competitive pound. I understand that that is now leading to an upturn in the economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hope that those hon. Members who are cheering agree that we should not have gone into it in the first place. Under EMU, we would not have been allowed to come out; we would have been locked in and that would have been that.
With separate currencies, if the economy becomes uncompetitive we get a warning signal—the balance of payments deficit—and we can take remedial action. With a single currency, that is not possible. Instead of a balance of payments deficit, there are blighted areas and unemployment and our people suffer.
What will happen if people who are suffering come to us with their grievances? What will Labour Members be able to say to them? How will we answer them? We will have to say, "We are sorry, but we gave these powers away and we cannot do anything about it." We should have to say that politics cannot be of any help or provide any remedy. I do not know how the Labour party can possibly support that. I only hope that the party that I know will come to its senses at some stage.

Mr. Wilkinson: I enter the debate with some trepidation after two such distinguished speeches as those of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). Both spoke with tremendous cogency and great intellectual honesty—a quality that has made our debates distinctive, certainly in regard to those who do not support the proposed treaty on European union.
I find it extremely strange that Her Majesty's Government should will the objective of European union —and thereby the mechanistic approach set out in the treaty to achieve it—while not wholly willing the means of stage 3 unless there be first the House's approval by Act of Parliament. This is an inherent inconsistency, which may have been convenient at the time of the general election but which does not bear rational scrutiny now.
The process whereby economic and monetary union is to be achieved is inherently one of convergence. Not just earlier this evening but in previous debates we have heard eloquent descriptions of how damaging that process of convergence has been for our own economy. It has been a shameful process. I simply do not understand how our Government could, with such equanimity, tolerate the wholly unnecessary imposition of the levels of unemployment and misery on our people which characterised the two years preceding our escape from the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September. Anyone with one grain—one iota—of economic nous knew that to perpetuate a regime of high interest rates at a time of world recession was to compound that recession virtually to the point of slump.

Mr. Budgen: Is not my hon. Friend being somewhat unkind to the Government? It might have been reasonable for the Government to say, before 16 September, "There have been only three or four attempts to fix our currency

to an exchange rate mechanism: each time it has given rise either to a slump or to some other major economic disaster, but none the less we want to try this experiment once more to see whether, with the finesse for which we are renowned, we can defeat the forces of the markets and the law of averages." That is a perfectly respectable argument. Once we had the good fortune to be thrown out of the ERM on 16 September, what further evidence was necessary to persuade the Government that a fixed exchange rate did not work and that a common currency would not work? The Government say that they need further argument and further persuasion to make up their mind. My hon. Friend is very fair minded. Will he explain what the Government have to make up their mind about?

Mr. Wilkinson: I may have been naive, but I thought that the Government were all too ready to make up their mind on such matters, often flying in the face of the facts. As evidence of that, I adduce the remarks of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who in the last debate that we had on EMU told me that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to rejoin the ERM as soon as the circumstances were right—and he gave the impression that those circumstances would be right in the not too distant future.
When I said that I found it wholly irrational that the Government should embrace the mechanistic approach to EMU contained in the treaty, I did so with good reason. Eschewing independence in monetary policy, losing full control of indirect taxation and taking part in the cohesion fund, which would export jobs from the United Kingdom and create them in our competitor countries in the south of Europe and in Ireland, were in the past—and will be to an even greater extent in the future—manifestly against our national interest. The same would be true of our embracing the treaty's disciplines on budget deficit and Government debt which, certainly in the case of budget deficit for the time being and probably for the foreseeable future, are beyond the wildest dreams of fiscal probity and discipline.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not my hon. Friend again being too harsh on the Government? Is he not aware that some very strong voices in the Government said that we should not join the ERM because they foresaw the very problems which materialised? However, British industry said that it needed stability and the advantages that it was sure that only the ERM could provide. The members of the Government who had strong doubts about the ERM agreed, saying that if that was what industry wanted, that was what they had better give it. The same voices in industry who spoke of the need to go into the ERM are now speaking of the need to ratify the treaty. Does my hon. Friend agree that they were wrong then and that they are wrong now?

Mr. Wilkinson: There is much in what my hon. and learned Friend says. I merely observe that I was struck by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks in his Budget statement in which he seemed to take a perverse pride in our escape from the ERM on 16 September and virtually to claim that it was Government policy. To be candid, I do not think that the Government have received the condemnation that was rightly due. However, one could perhaps be more charitable and say that the Government held an understandable position and were seeking, once and for all, to stamp out the age old British problem of


inflation and to do so by means of the artificial discipline of our membership of the ERM. They almost did so, but, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East said, the pain was eventually too great and the medicine was on the point of killing the patient.

Mr. Marlow: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the Daily Mail today? He said that the cohesion fund would take jobs from this country and create them in Italy, Greece and Ireland. If he had read the Daily Mail today, he might ask what evidence there is that the money would produce jobs anywhere and not go into the pockets of the Mafia, corrupt officials and the IRA.

Mr. Wilkinson: The derogation of the sovereignty of our Parliament and of the British nation through its traditional democratic institutions in favour of the centralised institutions of the Community is one of the most pernicious and damning aspects of the proposed treaty on European union. There have been some eloquent descriptions of it, most notably perhaps from Paul Johnson in The Daily Telegraph today. As is so often the case, my hon. Friend gets straight to the point.

Mr. Budgen: As to why the Government cannot make up their minds on monetary union, the Danes have done so and say that they do not want any form of monetary union. Do the Danes have information that is denied to our Government, or is it that our Government intend to slide into monetary union at some future stage and just want to play for time? I cannot believe that that is true.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is naive.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that the truth is that the Danes know something that we have not been told.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am worried that the Danes may not adequately know what is known to us and of the admission by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Committee last week that the so-called opt-outs or further opt-outs that the Danes obtained at Edinburgh have no legal effect and are not justiciable. In other words, on 18 May the Danish people will be asked essentially the same question that they were asked in the previous referendum. They believe otherwise, but on this serious matter the Danish people are being misled.
We should not be misled. We have no excuse for being misled. Only last week, an eminent body of Eurocrats examining the fault lines in the exchange rate mechanism —with the careful scrutiny that those fault lines, which so suddenly appeared on 16 September, merit—and with the wisdom of hindsight, declared that there was inherently nothing wrong with the ERM process towards economic and monetary union and concluded that, notwithstanding what happened, the Community should press on regardless to the objective of economic and monetary union.

Mr. Salmond: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the virtue of floating and competitive exchange rates between countries, but could not the same argument apply equally within member states? Is it not the case that at various times in the fairly recent past areas such as the north of England, Wales and Scotland suffered from an over-valued exchange rate—the national exchange rate of sterling? Can the hon. Gentleman point to any occasion when he expressed in the House the same amount of

sympathy for those areas in having to battle against an over-valued exchanged rate, or when he argued for a regional policy designed to combat the consequences and to provide compensation?

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, I can. Long before the hon. Gentleman entered the House, I was making speeches as the Member of Parliament for Bradford, West in favour of the Industry Act 1972 introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). With the benefit of hindsight, I would not make similar arguments today—not because I now represent a London constituency but because I believe that those policies were inherently wrongheaded. I take the hon. Gentleman's remarks with the pinch of salt that they deserve because he and his party sold their souls in earlier Divisions on the Bill, and his arguments do not carry now the weight which they might previously have done.
The loss of control of our economic policy contained in the treaty, notwithstanding the opt-out in clause 2, is such as to cause a fundamental change in the relationship between our people and their Government, as well as between the House and the Government represented in the House, and the institutions of Brussels—so much so that future generations will wonder how it came to be that the generation of 1992 in the House appeared to care so little for their nation's independence, sovereignty and pride. How was it? Were they blind? Were they stupid? Were they misled? Were they ignorant? What was it?
The reason, I believe, lies in the degeneration of our parliamentary processes. We have allowed our Parliament, our House of Commons, to become suborned. It is for this reason that I do not believe that the so-called opt-out in clause 2 is worth the paper on which it is written. If the Bill goes through and the treaty is ratified, I do not think that our people will ever be able to look to the House of Commons as the true custodian of their interests and as the guardian of their liberties.
12 midnight
Our people, if they are denied a referendum, will remember how the Whip was applied, how closures came down in mid-sentence, how closures came down before Front Benchers answered any of the arguments. They will also remember that patronage, intimidation, blackmail and the denial of votes on key amendments may have secured the acquis communautaire but that they will not have secured the proper scrutiny of key legislation for the management of this economy and for the democratic governance of our country. This is why I do not believe that the so-called opt-out from stage 3 counts for very much, unless we change or ways and unless we change our processes.
I shall not vote against the clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"' Why should I? I hope for the best, as anybody would. I place my hope in a future Parliament. It is for those who are elected to it to make sure that it does its duty. I hope that it will. I am an optimist. It is not for me to make a judgment. I cannot say that I have great optimism, but I hope most sincerely that on this point I shall be proved wrong.

Mr. Rowlands: The powerful speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) led to him carrying the Committee, until the last minute of it. I hope that at least he will consider voting against Third Reading, as opposed to clause 2.

Mr. Wilkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for the way in which parliamentary power will be eroded by the Bill and for the way in which economic and democratic choice will be destroyed by it. At the centre of any democracy is political and economic debate. If we accept the principle, philosophy, objective and aim of economic and monetary union, where lies the diversity and plurality of economic choice which is at the heart of any form of democratic decision making and of any democratic process?
I notice that the rubic to the clause is "Economic and monetary union." I have not been sent here by the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to back economic and monetary union and to back the monetarist policies that go with it which for generations have destroyed jobs in the communities that I represent. Over the years, Members of Parliament have come to this House of Commons from our communities to oppose such policies. I do not see why at this time we should support policies in treaty form which, if accepted and implemented, will be irrevocable for all time.
I was interested in the comparisons that were made. In one sense, the economic history was, I am afraid, slightly wrong. Comparison was made with the 1930s. The interesting point about the 1930s and the reason why we have drawn the wrong conclusion is that, oddly, it was Chamberlain, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when driven off the gold standard—the 1920s equivalent of the exchange rate mechanism—who devalued the pound which led to a 2 per cent. interest rate and, for most of the country, rapid growth. Unemployment fell after Britain came off the gold standard in 1931 from 3 million to 1.5 million. The tragedy of the 1930s was that that growth and prosperity bypassed huge areas of Britain. The absence of any form of regional policy led to large-scale unemployment in regional terms.
The ironic point is that for most of the 1930s the slump was mild and short-lived for large parts of the country. The chief reason for that was that when in 1931 the Tory National Government were driven off the gold standard —the equivalent of the ERM—they were able to follow a policy of devaluation—like floating exchange rates—and interest rates were 2 per cent. That led to a sustained boom in many parts of the country. Alas, that was not the case for south Wales and for three or four other major areas. That, rather than the lesson that one or two hon. Members have drawn, is the lesson to draw, ironically, from the experience of the 1930s.

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman bring matters a little nearer to today and tell us whether he regards the Bretton Woods experience as a disaster?

Mr. Rowlands: The Bretton Woods experience was very different from the one that we are being asked to write into the treaty. It was a completely different set of principles and arrangements.

Mr. Denzil Davies: A different kind.

Mr. Rowlands: It was of a different kind. What we do know is that, when people have tried to fix exchange rates and have then driven monetarist policies to support them, those actions have led to high rates of unemployment, and to slump and depression. For the life of me I cannot see

how, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) forcefully put it, the Labour party, above all, can be endorsing or supporting such processes.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Lady Thatcher that, in terms of exchange rates, one cannot buck the market?

Mr. Rowlands: I rarely agree with anything that Lady Thatcher and Lord Lawson say. However, once or twice they get it right. In the case of fixed exchange rates and the experience of the ERM, those who were critics of that arrangement—a number of hon. Members on both sides were critics—have been proved right. The point was put more than forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East. Why should we listen to those who got it hopelessly wrong in the past 18 months to two years, and why should we believe that they are any more likely to get it right next time?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly compare the 1920s with today? We should remember that today we have automation and mechanisation. We do not see a conductor on a bus. To get out of a station, one puts in a ticket, and to get on to the train one gets a ticket out of a machine. So many jobs have been lost as a result of high technology. We do not have a labour-intensive economy—[Interruption] My point has everything to do with monetary policy. The hon. Gentleman is trying to compare unemployment in the 1920s with unemployment today. He is simply not comparing like with like.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when references were made to the nature of the depression of the interwar years. I was observing that the reason why unemployment fell after 1931 in many parts of the country but not, sadly, in the part that I represent was that Britain came off the gold standard—the equivalent of coming out of the ERM—in 1931. That was one of the lessons that it was worth while to draw. The other was the need for regional policy, with which Conservative Members still disagree. I do not think that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will agree with us on regional policy, although he should because the other lesson to draw from the terrible experiences of the 1930s was the problem caused by the reluctance to apply a regional policy when the general prosperity bypassed whole areas.
When there was a change in the late 1930s as a result of parliamentary and public pressure, and when there was a nascent regional policy, we saw at last the possibility of that policy improving employment problems in areas such as mine. We shall not accept going back to concepts of monetarism and fixed exchange rates, which have destroyed and not enhanced jobs in communities such as mine, both historically and recently.
How are we to believe the assurances that have been given in respect of clause 2? Are we to believe that here are the belt and braces, the buttress, of parliamentary democracy? That is what the Government claimed as they waved their piece of paper—another parallel with the 1930s, saying, "We have secured parliamentary democracy in our time; it is to be found in clause 2". Why should we believe that, given that, in accepting clause 1, we are


writing into our domestic legislation here and now, irrespective of what we might do at some future date, a whole series of provisions connected with stage 3?
Let me remind the Committee of what we have written into our domestic legislation by passing that clause. Article 3a(2) states:
Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in this Treaty … these activities shall include the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the introduction of a single currency, the ECU, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange rate policy.
If the Bill is passed, that provision will become part of our domestic legislation, as will articles 104c(1), 105(1) and 109j. We are writing into our domestic legislation here and now a whole series of articles and paragraphs containing provisions for the third stage of monetary union.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman went through the Lobby with me a little while ago. No doubt he will have noticed that we have this evening voted to ensure that we will not be able to veto the process of any member state —and that includes us—to the third stage by 1 January 1999. Has he also noted the crucial words in clause 2: unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament"?
I hope that hon. Members will note that that in no way says that, when a Bill comes before Parliament at a future date, we will he able to challenge the question and the principle of economic and monetary union. It is merely a device, a con trick and a fraud. The clause does no more than to tell us that the Government will produce the draft of the notification and that the scope of the Bill will be so restricted that we shall be able to do damn all about it.

Mr. Rowlands: I was drawing the Committee's attention to the fact that, if we pass the Bill, we pass into our domestic legislation all the articles of stage 3 of monetary union. I have never understood why—unless it was a piece of political expediency designed to get the treaty through and to get agreement at Maastricht—it was necessary to introduce a Bill to incorporate the whole of the stage 3 legislation now, given that we are supposed to have the chance of opting out of it at some future date. Why in 1993 should we introduce provision after provision and detail after detail enshrining in our domestic legislation monetary union, a single currency, irrevocable exchange rates and all the rest and all the statutes of the European central bank and of the ESCB? If we pass the Bill, every article that is part of stage 3 becomes part of our domestic law.
We are being asked to believe that, at some time in the future, the Government of the day will abort the whole process. Will they suddenly say, "No" when the momentum will have carried into our domestic legislation every provision necessary to implement stage 3? Will they really pull the plug at the last minute?
We must bear in mind that the Government are arguing that they want to be at the heart of Europe. They claim that their European credit and badge of honour lie in passing the Bill and implementing the legislative requirements of the treaty. However, we are led to believe that the Government will not come before the House at some point in the future with a Bill to press the button to implement the stage 3 mechanism. If we buy that one, we are more naive than I thought we were.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman is making a rhetorical point with great fervour. However, in this Parliament and under this system of Government of which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so proud, there are endless examples of legislation that is not brought into effect when it is passed, and in many cases, as political circumstances change, is not brought into effect at all. Why is this the con trick that the hon. Gentleman makes out it is?

Mr. Rowlands: In the 25 years or more that I have been in this place, I have found that there is an enormous difference between the implementation of a commencement order in domestic legislation and writing into domestic legislation an international treaty, with all its liabilities and obligations. There is a world of difference between those two processes.
It has been said that, because it is unlikely that anyone will be able to sign up to stage 3 for monetary union, we should not worry about it. However, we have been conned in the past. Everyone thought that the Single European Act would simply pave the way for a Common Market and that it was not part of the process towards political and monetary union that we are being asked to approve now. As we have been conned in the past, I am not willing to buy the legislative safeguards and provisions on offer in clause 2.

Mr. Rowe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The history of the world is littered with treaties that have been abrogated, have fallen into disuse or have been ignored as time progresses and political circumstances change. If the prognosis for the policies enshrined in the Maastricht treaty are half as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe, there is no prospect of its coming into serious effect.

Mr. Rowlands: I am not sure of the hon. Gentleman's criteria or standards of integrity, but I will not support a Bill or a treaty if I believe that it does not mean something or that it should not be implemented. I will not support it if I believe that, with a bit of luck, things will change and it will become irrelevant. That is not the way to legislate or to sign treaties.
As I do not agree with the objectives of the treaty or the legislation seeking to implement the treaty, and as I do not believe in the reassurances offered on clause 2, I will oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) doubted whether I would support his arguments about regional policy. However, arguments about regional policy are relevant to the discussion.
When we tell Scotland that it cannot have its own currency or devalue it or float it against the English pound and thereby put itself in a more competitive position in comparison to the English, and as we deprive Scotland of that control over its economy, we must say, "All right—we'll give you some compensation by way of a regional fund." That has a lesson for us as we consider the treaty. It is nonsense for the Government to say, "We are prepared to go into a single currency, but we are not prepared to allow a major extension of the regional and social fund".

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman, with his usual perception, has put his finger on the important point that regional policy is a compensation for our surrogate devaluation—for not having the ability to have a flexible exchange rate. Would it not be ironic if, in the review of regional policy which is under way at present, the Government were to tilt the balance even further by reorienting that regional policy towards areas which should not be looking for compensation from an overvalued exchange rate? Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that he will oppose that when a measure providing for the concentration of regional policy on the south-west of England comes before the House in the next few months?

Mr. Budgen: As to the areas which require compensation, that depends simply on the question of which area might benefit from having an independent currency. For the sake of argument, it is logical and possible that, if Wales were independent, it might be the area with a strong exchange rate against the pound. Equally, it is possible that the south-east, with a freely floating pound, might be the area with an exchange range which floats downwards and becomes more competitive. I do not agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) flows inexorably from what I am saying.
It is amazing that the Government say, "We might well go into a single currency, but we are not prepared to see the funds for the regional and social fund grow any more". The weaker economies of Europe, which have been denied the opportunity of pricing themselves into work, will inevitably ask for more money. If our Government are right in saying that the treaty is not a federal structure which will give the other countries some form of joint control over the way in which they regulate their economies and see that money which comes from central and public funds is properly administered, that will inevitably result in a great increase in the waste and fraud which is already a large feature of the life of the EEC. That may be only a small point in the argument about whether we should have a single currency.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney reviewed the way in which we have experimented over the past 60 years with various attempts at fixed exchange rates. He referred to the lessons which many people learnt in 1931. I suppose the next catastrophic lesson that was learnt from fixing exchange rates occurred in 1967. This Government learned a terrible lesson on 16 September. One must ask the question: what is the purpose of politics if it is not to give some form of intellectual leadership and choice to the nation?
For the sake of argument, if one goes into a pub and asks someone, "Are you in favour of the council tax?", it would be perfectly reasonable for that person to say, "I really do not know; I cannot tell—I shall have to think about it later." But if one asked the Prime Minister, "Are you in favour of the council tax?", it is not unreasonable for him to have a view about it. It is not unreasonable for him to say, "As a matter of fact, I am in favour of the council tax". Despite the occasional mistakes that we make, I suggest that an advantage of voting Conservative is that one gets the council tax.
Surely it is not a gross impertinence to say that someone who asks for guidance about the advantages of fixed exchange rates over floating exchange rates is entitled to

say to the politicians, "Please could you tell me what is your view about this? I understand that there have been experiments about fixed exchange rates for some 62 years and clever people have drawn conflicting conclusions about them. But, o politician, don't we employ you to have a view about this?"
It is extraordinary that the Government's position is, "This is a frightfully difficult problem. We really do not know what our view will be about this. A lot of superior people in Europe are saying that they intend to move to a single currency. It would be grossly impertinent of us to offer a view about it. Could we please move as close as possible to a single currency? Then it is just possible that we may exercise intellectual and political leadership and tell the British people whether in our opinion entering a single currency would be to their advantage."

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that a book was written once upon a time on a theme similar to the one that my hon. Friend is developing? It was by a certain Samuel Smiles, who wrote about Mr. Nobody. Samuel Smiles' point of criticism was that this extraordinary person continually passed the buck because he could not make up his mind what policy he should pursue. As a result, he fell eventually into the trap of developing such a fit of political defeatism that government simply disintegrated. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could be the path on which we are now embarked?

Mr. Budgen: I find it all very difficult. We have a truly remarkable political debate in Britain. The two Front-Bench teams broadly agree that our economy should be run in subordination to the European Community. Yet marginal changes in taxation give rise to enormous certainties and a vast amount of inter-party abuse.

Mr. Marlow: Going back to where my hon. Friend was a few moments ago, I think that he has missed the point, wittily though he has put it. When one says to the Prime Minister, "Are you in favour of a fixed exchange rate or not?", the answer will not be whether he is in favour of it or not, but whether it brings us closer to the heart of Europe or not. It is not about the fixed exchange rate. Everything is related to how close it brings us to the heart of Europe.

Mr. Budgen: That may be so, but as I understand it —I may be wrong—the Danes have said that they do not want a single currency at any price. It may be that the Danes have been conned. Everyone knows how clever everyone in Europe is. The Danes have been brave enough to make it an issue of principle and to say that they do not want a single currency.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned two matters for which there is surely a sensible and understandable explanation. The first is the alleged difference between stages 2 and 3, which the Prime Minister suggests is a great victory for choice. Could not the two Front-Bench teams and the Cabinet be accused by the man in the street of political and constitutional fraud? Secondly, as the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), has made plain at the Dispatch Box and in written answers, there is no change in Denmark's obligations under the treaty. Nothing has been changed by the so-called decision that the Prime Minister


brought back from Edinburgh. He came back waving a second piece of paper, pretending that it changed something.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman may be right to say that the Danes have been conned. That is the opinion of many of our academic and practising lawyers, such as Martin Howe.[Interruption.] He comes from a distinguished family who have a great deal of knowledge of the workings of the Community. Given that Martin Howe's uncle, as Attorney-General, was responsible for dealing with the European Communities Act 1972 and that we, as Tories, believe in inherited ability, we should be inclined to be respectful of that man's views. The man in the pub would say that Martin Howe says that the Danes are being conned. He is a high-class lawyer, however, and he would not put it in such crude terms, but he may or may not be right.

Mr. Dickens: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Bethnal Green (Mr. Shore) made a thoughtful contribution. He spoke about the grave and great difficulties for all the European currencies in achieving convergence so that they could proceed to a single currency. He said that new members of the Common Market complicated the formula.
I believe that those convergence difficulties mean that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of a single currency. If we were to vote clause 2 down, we would be making a decision to opt out from the treaty now rather than opting out at the time when we come to consider convergence. If one signs a treaty, it is common sense to stick with it until its proposals are up for consideration. Until then, one has taken a decision.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the earlier part of his intervention, because he said—I hope that I have got it right—that the proposals for convergence could never be met and that if we attempted to do so it would gravely damage the British economy. He said that that disadvantage was so plain that the Prime Minister should explain to the British people that it could never be to their advantage to opt for a single currency.
There are various certainties in British politics. It is a matter of passionate and clear certainty that if one wants to raise a bit more tax, it is obvious that it should be done by raising value added tax on fuel. That, I understand, is the Tory party's position. That is a matter of certainty and principle which can be easily fought on. It is equally obvious that, for the Labour party, if one wants to raise a bit of extra taxation, it is better done by raising income tax. If such certainties can be expressed about marginal preferences as to whether one should get a bit of extra taxation from one group or another—I would have thought that that was not capable of quite such certainty and must be a matter of marginal preference for each party —surely it is the role of politicians to offer some leadership and some guidance on great issues such as whether we should have a single currency.
Whether we should have followed a policy of rearmament before the last war was another great issue. I do not remember politicians saying to the nation, "Well, we are not terribly sure about this. This is a very, very difficult subject."

Mr. Giles Radice: That is precisely what they said.

Mr. Budgen: Not all of them. The history books tell us that some of them suggested that rearmament was necessary. Some of them suggested that the balance of argument was plain and that we should do something about the problem. Some of them thought that political leadership was about doing the best that one could in evaluating the evidence, then offering some leadership.
As we have been experimenting with fixed exchange rate mechanisms for 62 years, I should not have thought that it would be asking the politicians too much to offer the nation some guidance and leadership. However, if the Tory party leadership is not prepared to offer that guidance and leadership, it inevitably leads one to the conclusion that perhaps it wants to enter the fixed exchange rate mechanism and, following that, a single currency. Otherwise, why should not the leadership offer the guidance?

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the arguments continuously advanced in Government circles is that the whole process is unworkable? Therefore, the Government's way out is to tell us to go along with a modest treaty which does not add up to a row of beans. They forget that it takes 12 member states unanimously to ratify the treaty, and as six of them have their noses firmly in the subsidy trough, the unanimity to unravel the treaty afterwards will not exist. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an element of deception in the way the argument is being advanced?

Mr. Budgen: I do not understand the Government's position. We understand, and have always been told, that we have a politically adroit Conservative Government who are superb at wrong-footing the Labour party. The Labour party has stood on its head 100 times and has finally reached the position where it is in favour of obtaining a single currency as soon as possible. It can now be portrayed as the great internationalist and European party.
The Whips sidle up to us saying, "Old boy, this will never come about; show some political sophistication and vote for a bit of nonsense as it will never come about; don't be so awkward and silly—for heaven's sake, learn a bit of political skill or you will never survive." I should have thought that such an adroit Government would appreciate that if the treaty was always going to be nonsense and never come about, there was no better way to make the Labour party unpopular than to play the patriotic card and say that the Labour party was now in the hands of the European enthusiasts while the Conservatives should say that theirs was a British policy, based on sound assessment of what was economically possible.
I find the position difficult to understand. I should have thought that if the Whips were right in saying that the treaty was nonsense, it was a good opportunity for the Government to say clearly that they would not have a single currency at any price at any time. They should say, "We understand the arguments; we made a terrible mistake which left us in an appallingly humiliating position on 16 September, but at least we have learnt from it." If they cannot say that, are we not left with the awful suspicion that they want to return to the ERM and a single currency as quickly as possible? And are we not left in the


awful position in which the mistakes of 16 September will be repeated with horrifying consequences for the British people?

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Spearing (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I do not like this headgear—it does not suit me—but I have no choice but to wear it. I believe that I am correct in saying that the spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition did not contribute to the last debate.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is correct.

Mr. Spearing: Is it in order, Mr. Lofthouse, for a closure motion to be accepted when an important financial matter has not been spoken to by the Opposition spokesman—or did he not wish to speak?

The Chairman: It was certainly in order. I do not call Members who do not rise to speak.

Mr. Spearing: Thank you, Sir.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 284, Noes 248.

Division No. 239]
[12.39 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alton, David
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Congdon, David


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David (Bour' mouth E)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D' by'ire)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dafis, Cynog


Bates, Michael
Dalyell, Tam


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butterfill, John
Evennett, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faber, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fabricant, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Carrington, Matthew
Fenner, Dame Peggy





Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Madel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorst, John
Milligan, Stephen


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stern, Michael






Stewart, Allan
Wallace, James


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sykes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trend, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tyler, Paul



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. David Lightbown and


Walden, George
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cran, James


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cryer, Bob


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Austin-Walker, John
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bell, Stuart
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Dr. Roger
Enright, Derek


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blair, Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Budgen, Nicholas
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Fraser, John


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Gill, Christopher


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cash, William
Godsiff, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hain, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate





Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Randall, Stuart


Jessel, Toby
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Knapman, Roger
Salmond, Alex


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Alice
Sweeney, Walter


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert N


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilkinson, John


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Mudie, George
Wise, Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.


Olner, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 271, Noes 55.

Division No. 240]
[12.55 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Faber, David


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alton, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bates, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Gillan, Cheryl


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorst, John


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





Luff, Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Sir Keith


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spink, Dr Robert


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spring, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sproat, Iain


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant, Piers
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Milligan, Stephen
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Sykes, John


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wolfson, Mark


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. David Lightbown, and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Galloway, George


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gerrard, Neil


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cash, William
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clapham, Michael
Johnston, Sir Russell


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cox, Tom
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cryer, Bob
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken






Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Tyler, Paul


Madden, Max
Wallace, James


Mahon, Alice
Watson, Mike


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Andrew


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wise, Audrey


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Pickthall, Colin
Tellers for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mrs. Margaret Ewing.


Redmond, Martin



Rooney, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. You will recall that, during the previous Division, I raised a point of order about the closure motion and the conduct of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. I pointed out that there had been no speech from a member of the Opposition Front Bench. I inquired about the propriety of accepting a closure motion in those circumstances. You informed me that, to your knowledge or to your sight, no member of the Opposition Front Bench rose to speak. As a result, I had a few words with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already ruled on that point of order, and I have nothing further to add.
I must tell the Committee that, after the debate on clause 3 stand part, I am prepared to select for separate Divisions new clauses 1 and 2, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1

ANNUAL REPORT BY BANK OF ENGLAND

'.—In implementing Article 108 of Title II of the Treaty on European Union, and ensuring compatibility of the statutes of the national central bank, Her Majesty's Government shall, by order, make provision for the Governor of the Bank of England to make an annual report to

Parliament, which shall be subject to approval by a Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

INFORMATION FROM COMMISSION

'In implementing the provisions of Article 103(3) of Title II of the Treaty on European Union, information shall be submitted to the Commission from the United Kingdom indicating performance on economic growth, industrial investment, employment and balance of trade, together with comparisons with those items of performance from other member states.'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am prepared to allow after a debate on new clause 8 separate Divisions on new clauses 10 and 12, both in the name of the right hon.Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).

New clause 8

ENTRY INTO FORCE

'This Act shall come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order in a statutory instrument.'.—[Mr. Shore.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Dorrell: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) does not appear among those shown in the amendment paper against new clause 8.

The First Deputy Chairman: I advise the Committee that any right hon. or hon. Member can move the motion.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again. —[Mr. MacKay.]

Committee report progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — Helicopter Safety (North Sea)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help the House? I know that you have resumed the Chair and that that causes certain problems when describing what occurred when the House was sitting as a Committee of the whole House, but would it be possible for you to explain the slight confusion at the end of the Committee's proceedings? Can I take it that the moving of new clause 8 will occur at the beginning of the next sitting of the Committee and that the motion to report progress took place prior to any—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. New clause 8 has been moved, but it can be debated at the next sitting.

Mr. Brian Wilson: This debate arises directly out of the determination by Sheriff Alexander Jessop following the fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of 11 men in the North sea, after the tragic failure of a brief flight between the Cormorant Alpha platform and the accompanying safe supporter on 14 March last year. I wish to pay tribute to Sheriff Jessop for the depth and clarity of his report. I also want to place on record the sympathy of this House to the bereaved of that accident, which reminded us again of the high cost of North sea oil and gas, in terms of human life.
I do not have time to analyse in detail Sheriff Jessop's findings, and indeed I do not want to confine this debate to the specific circumstances of Cormorant Alpha. One of Sheriff Jessop's observations was:
each and every witness was anxious to ensure that as much as possible could be learned from this tragic accident to ensure that future deaths might be prevented.
It is in that broader spirit that I approach tonight's debate, and raise relevant questions.
Central to what I am asking the Minister to respond to is a concern about the means which at present exist for enforcing and regulating helicopter safety in the North sea. Sheriff Jessop has asked the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a wide-ranging review of helicopter safety. This is undoubtedly overdue. As things stand, the CAA is the appropriate body for him to call upon.
However, I am bound to express my own view, which is also the long-standing position of the Labour party, that we need an independent safety body, the sole concern of which is safety in all its forms. It should not be an agency with other governmental responsibilities. The nearest parallel which I can draw is with the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States. This is the kind of body which should now have—and, indeed, years ago should have had—overall responsibility for helicopter safety in the North sea, and much else besides.
I believe the record of the Civil Aviation Authority in these matters must be subjected to scrutiny. Sheriff Jessop commented upon their "reactive" role. Many who work in the North sea believe that even this term does not adequately reflect the CAA's reluctance to take a lead. The point was made to me that Shell had at least taken the initiative in introducing its own adverse weather regime as a form of self-regulation. It deserves credit for doing so,

albeit after the Cormorant Alpha tragedy had occurred. No other oil company has yet followed suit, which is regrettable. But the even more serious point is that the Civil Aviation Authority has not obliged any oil company, including Shell, to introduce these precautions. Surely it should not be down to individual oil, or helicopter, companies to decide on such a fundamental safety issue. The regulations should come through the regulatory body, and at present that means the CAA.
Sheriff Jessop has asked the CAA itself to review the adverse weather issue, and a list of others. But the point has been made to me that this is a case of asking the poacher to investigate the poacher, because many of the worries about helicopter safety in the North sea stem directly from the perception that the CAA has been, at best, "reactive" and, at worst, inactive over a long period. Nobody questions its integrity or professional competence, but it does work under pressure as an agency of Government to take account of factors other than safety.
As for adverse weather, the contradiction is that the helicopters are designed to withstand conditions in which the safety apparatus may not function. Shell has now acknowledged that fast dinghies, which may be the only realistic means of effecting a rescue, may not be launched from safety vessels in conditions which give rise to waves of over 5·5 m. That is in line with the CAA specifications for these small craft.
However, the Super Puma helicopter, for instance, is thought to be able to float in 30-ft waves. There may be limited point in that admirable characteristic if nobody can get launched to rescue the people who are on board, because of the same fierce weather conditions.
Does it not make sense to bring these factors into line? It is not, in such circumstances, the performance of the helicopter which matters more but the performance of the means of rescue. If these means do not exist, then should the helicopter be flying?
The CAA knows that helicopters are less safe than fixed-wing aircraft. As one helicopter pilot said to me, the CAA dresses people up as if they were going to the moon to travel on board one. In spite of the recognition that there is a higher risk of men ending up in the sea, the CAA does not seek to guarantee, in so far as anything can be guaranteed, an environment in which that eventuality is survivable.
That is the key paradox. Quite simply, one should not have helicopters flying over 50-ft waves unless some realistic assurance exists that there will be means of survival if the helicopter ends up in the sea. At present, the safety regime seems to rely on the statistical probability that the helicopter will not ditch and that if it does, it will not be one of those nasty days. Sadly, reality does not always match statistical probability.
I shall touch quickly on some other points. It is clear that pilot fatigue can be a factor in helicopter accidents. The logic of that reality is surely that, in the interests of safety, we should be moving towards shorter flying hours for pilots, or at least retaining the status quo. The present flight time and duty hour limitations were introduced only in 1990, specifically in response to the concerns of aero-medical examiners serving the Aberdeen area about the high incidence of fatigue among helicopter pilots. Now it seems that the process is to be reversed.
The newly issued EC proposals for limitations, to take effect in 1995, represent a considerable liberalising of the position and are causing great concern in the industry.


They were drawn up, incidentally, with the involvement of non-EC countries where existing standards may be less rigid, which seems a little odd.
Under those proposals, there are no controls to prevent duty hours from being acquired in a short period. Some activities, such as standby at the place of work, may not count as duty. There are reduced provisions for rest clays. In short, the British Air Line Pilots Association—BALPA —believes that the net effect of the current proposals could be a cumulative increase in flying hours of almost 40 per cent. over the maximum currently permitted in the United Kingdom over a three-day period. That, quite simply, is unacceptable, and must not be accepted by the Department of Transport.
I turn briefly to the carriage of safety equipment, which takes me back to the question of who should exercise a regulatory role. The question whether survival craft are best carried inside or outside the helicopter strikes me as fundamental. In all the years that helicopters have been operating in the North sea, one would have thought that an informed decision might have been made on which solution offers the better prospect of survival. One would then expect the CAA to regulate accordingly.
Not so. This, like so much else, is still a matter for the individual operator. Putting the craft outside the helicopter costs more money. Some operators, notably British International Helicopters, accept that commitment; others do not. In my view, it should be a matter not of choice but of regulation.
I shall say a word about search and rescue helicopters from mainland bases. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) wants to pursue the point with the leave of the House and with the agreement of the Minister. I asked a number of people involved in the North sea what they thought about recent cuts. In each case, they thought them regrettable and potentially dangerous. "We certainly didn't want to lose Leuchars," one pilot said to me. Frankly, if they—along with many others—did not want to lose Leuchars, they should not have lost it, and that cover should be restored.
I have one final point, which is not directly for the Minister, but which I hope he will draw to the attention of a colleague. Sheriff Jessop, having presided over this harrowing inquiry, specifically recommended that witnesses in such inquiries should have access to legal aid. I hope that his authoritative view will be accepted.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise these important matters, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here at this time, and, because of the circumstances in which the debate was obtained, at slightly shorter notice than usual. As the tragedy of Cormorant Alpha demonstrated, like many tragedies before it, we are talking literally of matters of life and death. We owe the people working in the North sea a great deal. Indeed, we owe them nothing but the best, and that means nothing but the safest.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister for allowing me a couple of minutes to speak on this issue. It is not just the fact that many hon. Members, if they had been aware that this debate was taking place, would have wanted to say something about the withdrawal of the search and rescue

facilities, especially at Leuchars, which is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who, I am sure, would have wished to have made some comment.
The matter is of concern to those of us on the east coast of Scotland, not only because of the facility that was available to those who wanted to go climbing in and around Tayside but because of the part that it played in the many incidents that unfortunately occur offshore in the various east Neuk holiday resorts and in holiday resorts off the east coast of Scotland. Had the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East been here, he would have been able to put the case for the retention of that search and rescue facility more strongly than I can.
I am also concerned about the movement of search and rescue helicopters down the whole of the east coast. Some of the changes that are taking place—particularly the movement of the SAR helicopters from Coltishall to Wattisham—have put some grass platforms in the southern sector at least 20 more minutes beyond the limit that is normally acceptable, and that is bound to give us cause for concern.
Let me return to the Cormorant Alpha accident. As my hon. Friend explained, the concern over safety is that there is a gap between the regulatory responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly, as regards the decision whether to fly, there is a gap in responsibility between the offshore installation manager, who is responsible for everything on the installation, and the pilot, who is responsible for the helicopter and the passengers.
We know from anecdotal evidence that many of the unions, including my union, MSF, have gathered a great deal of evidence to suggest that, in the North sea, pilots are under pressure to fly in conditions that are bad enough to justify a decision not to fly. An unco-operative pilot could lose his employer the next contract.
Because the CAA says that the pilot is responsible, those commercial pressures are never revealed. If the pilot admitted that he had flown when he thought that the conditions were not correct, he could end up losing his licence, and that could lead to his dismissal. If he does not respond to the pressures put on him by his employer, his employer could lose the contract.
Even if the employer supported the pilot when he said that he believed that the conditions were not right for him to fly, there is the possibility that, when the contract review came along, the employer could lose. All those areas of concern needed to be answered by the Minister—if not tonight, on a later occasion.
We have plenty of hard evidence, which will be going to tribunals in the near future, to suggest that oil companies often tell the contractor who to keep and who to make redundant: often, the oil companies themselves do not deny it. Again, the pressure is on the pilots.
As my hon. Friend said, we are also worried that, given the conditions on arrival at the scene, an arrival time of two hours for night flights is not adequate. There is no way that many of those involved in incidents can survive during the period that it takes the helicopter to reach the scene.
The Norwegians base an SAR machine offshore to provide better cover. I hope that the Minister will be able to say what steps have been taken to base search and rescue helicopters offshore to take account of that concern. We are concerned that some of the changes that the


Ministry of Defence has made were on safety itself, and I hope that the Minister will be able to return to that matter at a later time.
One other element involved in the Cormorant accident was the use of cordless headsets in the helicopters. There has been some debate about whether the cordless headset is viable or makes sense. There is evidence that, unfortunately, during the Cormorant Alpha accident, someone was trapped when the cord was wrapped around his neck. There are clear signs that, in many cases, companies are resisting a move towards cordless headsets, simply because of finance. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government support the use of cordless headsets in helicopters, and that pressure will be placed on companies to introduce them as quickly as possible.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important issue that affects the safety of thousands of workers in the often hostile environment of the North sea. It is useful for the House to have this opportunity to consider the matter, and the debate is also timely, as the hon. Gentleman said, given the recent publication of the sheriff's report in Aberdeen about the accident near the Cormorant Alpha platform last March. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to join him in expressing our sympathy to those who were bereaved in the accident, and to pay tribute to the work of Sheriff Jessop, who has produced a comprehensive and useful report.
I must tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), whose interest in the matter is consistent, that I may not be able to answer all the technical points that have been raised, but I undertake to study the record and to respond to any of the points that I cannot answer this evening.
With regard to cordless headsets, I recall the evidence given to the sheriff about the sad circumstances of one of the fatalities, which appeared to show that the person concerned was unable to extricate himself from the head cord. However, I am unsure whether that is a situation that demands a position from the Government. If it is, it is one of the matters to which I hope to return.
North sea oil and gas are of vital importance to the economy, but we must ensure that safety is always the first priority in aviation or any other activity. In the United Kingdom, the regulation of civil aviation safety is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Christopher Chataway setting out the CAA's objectives makes it very clear that safety is the responsibility of the CAA, and that the Government do not intend to interfere in the discharge of those duties.
Aircraft accidents in the United Kingdom are investigated by the air accidents investigation branch of the Department of Transport. That organisation is deliberately separate from the CAA, so that the regulators are not put in the position of having to judge the effectiveness of their rules and regulations. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said, that would be a bit like asking poachers to judge other poachers.
The AAIB is very widely respected in the aviation community—for instance, its painstaking reconstruction and report of the Lockerbie disaster has drawn worldwide acclaim. The branch is, of course, preparing a very detailed report on the accident at Cormorant Alpha, and this will be published at the end of May. It would not be right for me to prejudge that report.
However, I can assure the House that the CAA will study the AAIB's report very carefully when it is published, as it does in all such cases. It will be for it, using its professional expertise, to decide on action to be taken in response to the safety recommendations in the report. I understand that the CAA is also studying the report on Sheriff Jessop's fatal accident inquiry. There is already a significant programme of work aimed at improving helicopter safety and I shall return to that shortly.
The principal use of helicopters in the United Kingdom for passenger and cargo transport is in the North sea, where, as was said, the extreme environmental hazards are well known. Some eight different types of multi-engined aircraft are used, more than half being the largest types, the Super Pumas and S-61s, each carrying up to 19 passengers. In 1992, the United Kingdom offshore helicopter operations involved some 256,000 flights by 122 helicopters, carrying nearly 2 million passengers.
Even those large figures show a reduction on recent years—in 1991, 137 aircraft on 323,000 flights carried nearly 2·4 million passengers. I give the House those figures simply to put the safety record into perspective vis-a-vis the great number of uneventful helicopter operations.
In the 12 years 1981 to 1992 inclusive, there have been six fatal helicopter crashes offshore, 72 passenger fatalities and the death of 10 crew, of whom more than half were lost in the 1986 accident, when 43 passengers and a pilot died in the Boeing Chinook near Sumburgh in Shetland. That sort of helicopter is no longer used. Sadly and unusually, there were two unprecedented accidents in 1992, in each of which a deck worker was killed by a helicopter rotor.
I must stress that we are looking at the statistics of rare events—six fatal accidents in more than 3 million flights —and one accident can have a marked influence on the apparent trends. If one takes a five-year moving average, the number of fatal accidents per million hours flown declined from more than five to less than two through the 1980s. However, one accident in 1990 and the one in 1992 have pushed the average back up to 3·5. The CAA and the industry know that continued efforts are needed to maintain an improvement in that record.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The statistical evidence which the Minister is producing would not normally be challenged. However, in the North sea, we are moving to not normally manned platforms, which will mean about 20,000 to 30,000 extra flying hours per employee, and, unfortunately, such incidents are more likely to occur. Although the statistics were relevant before, they will not be relevant once we move more towards not normally manned installations.

Mr. Norris: That is a fair point to make. I do not want to overdo the point on which I have been elaborating. It is merely to set the incidence of accidents in the context of a busy theatre of activity in which literally millions of passengers are being transported. It is always a difficult


thing to do, but in the short time available I am trying to place in context the sort of accident rate that we have had, wherein, for example, a single accident had a significant effect on the statistical averages because of the number of fatalities that have occurred over 12 years.
The oil industry, under the aegis of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, has set up a helicopter safety steering group. The aim of that group is to co-ordinate progress towards improved helicopter safety. The CAA, the three principal helicopter operating companies—Bristow, Bond and British International Helicopters—and the British Helicopter Advisory Board, chaired by Lord Glenarthur, are represented on the group. Subjects already under study include improvements to lifejackets and the automatic inflation of emergency floats.
It is worth repeating that helicopter operations in the North sea take place in a wide range of weather conditions, but not beyond those approved by CAA in terms of the capability of aircraft and crew. Nonetheless, it is often a hostile environment. The oil companies generally have a wind-speed limit for working on helidecks, and require their employees to wear survival suits when flying. They also give their employees training in emergency procedures. The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether all companies in the North sea should operate adverse weather policies. Clearly, that is an important question.
In his report of the fatal accident inquiry into the Cormorant Alpha crash, the sheriff recommended that every operator and installation in the North sea should take into account the effect of adverse weather on the availability of rescue resources. The Health and Safety Executive is considering that matter in the context of planned new regulations on emergency response, on which it intends to issue a consultative document in the summer.
The new offshore safety case regulations, which come into force this year, require a demonstration that foreseeable risks to persons from a major accident have been fully assessed and measures in place to reduce risks to as low as is reasonably practicable. In that context, it would effectively impose what amounts to an adverse weather policy requirement on operators in the North sea under the new safety case regulations.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West referred to the adequacy of search and rescue facilities. During this debate, I do not want to go into the whole question of the deployment of individual helicopters. I hope that he will allow me to get back to him on that. Suffice it to say that we have search and rescue facilities in the United Kingdom which are the envy of most other countries.
Aeronautical search and rescue is co-ordinated by the rescue and co-ordination centres of the RAF. The centres can call on RAF, Royal Navy and coastguard helicopters as well as other ships and aircraft. In addition, Shell provides a helicopter station in the east Shetland basin which is available to assist with SAR. Helicopters are sometimes called up to operate SAR missions in sea states too hazardous for small surface vessels.
We should not overlook the fact that our neighbours in Norway and Denmark also have helicopter operations in the North sea, albeit on a smaller scale. It is heartening to observe that, in an emergency, the helicopters of each

country can be used to help the others. Sadly, the hazards are common. The Norwegians suffered a fatal accident in 1991, with the loss of three lives.
On the matter of principles, it is worth noting that the rotary wing of the helicopter gives it well-known capabilities and manoeuvrability, which make it so important for oil industry support. However, the rotary wing and the machinery which drives and controls it make the helicopter a complex vehicle. That complexity and the uses to which the helicopter is put have made it difficult to achieve accident rates similar to comparable turbo-prop fixed-wing aeroplanes. However, it is the aim of the CAA to achieve comparable accident rates.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I have only four minutes, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: I realise that the Minister has only four minutes, but will he comment on pilots' hours? If he cannot respond in detail and give me the Government's view tonight, perhaps he will undertake to write to me.

Mr. Norris: I did not intend to elaborate on the subject of pilots' hours. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to it in his speech and I shall write to him specifically on it.
In the early 1980s, the CAA and the oil industry established the helicopter airworthiness review panel, which reported in 1984 with some 15 detailed recommendations. In response to the HARP recommendations, a comprehensive programme of research was defined. The cost was borne jointly by CAA, the Departments of Transport and Energy and the oil industry—the UK Offshore Operators Association. Some £1·6 million was spent in the period 1987 to 1990.
A follow-on programme costing £1·7 million is currently in progress, with the Health and Safety Executive now contributing to it. It is a tribute to all involved that the fruits of this work will soon come into service in the form of systems to monitor the technical condition of the helicopter and to provide pilots and engineers with timely warnings.
In addition to making technical improvements to helicopers, the programme includes such items as the development of visual approach guidance lights, improved helideck markings and friction surfaces.
The Health and Safety Executive has responsibility for all aspects of safety on offshore installations, whereas the CAA is responsible for flight safety. The HSE has contracted the CAA to assist with a major inspection programme of helidecks, concentrating initially on the more difficult cases. The work is now in its second year; some 95 decks have been inspected so far, with a further 60 in the current phase. The remaining, less restricted, decks will be considered later. In addition to this, the national air traffic services have worked closely with the industry to improve radio communications and radar cover for North sea operations.
The safety of helicopter operations in the North sea is generally good, considering the environmental conditions experienced. However, there is no room for complacency and the reports from the sheriff of Grampian, Highlands and Islands and the air accident investigation branch will be carefully considered.
There are naturally calls for a review of North sea helicopter safety. As I have told the House, much work is in hand, and I would be cautious about diverting expert staff from the established programme, or of duplicating effort. It is, however, a most important subject, and I am

glad that we have had the opportunity to debate it. I reiterate that I undertake to cover in writing any items which hon. Members raised which I have not covered in my speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Two o'clock.